Rosh Hashanah 6 Part 2

Rosh Hashanah 6 Part 2

אַרְבָּעָה רָאשֵׁי שָׁנִים הֵם, בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן — רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים וְלָרְגָלִים.

MISHNA: They are four days in the year that serve as the New Year, each for a different purpose: On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; it is from this date that the years of a king’s rule are counted. And the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the order of the Festivals, as it determines which is considered the first Festival of the year and which the last.

בְּאֶחָד בֶּאֱלוּל — רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי.

On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes; all the animals born prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and are tithed as a single unit, whereas those born after that date belong to the next tithe year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal tithes is on the first of Tishrei.

בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי — רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַשָּׁנִים וְלַשְּׁמִיטִּין וְלַיּוֹבְלוֹת, לִנְטִיעָה וְלִירָקוֹת.

On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years, as will be explained in the Gemara; for calculating Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years, i.e., from the first of Tishrei there is a biblical prohibition to work the land during these years; for planting, for determining the years of orla, the three-year period from when a tree has been planted during which time its fruit is forbidden; and for tithing vegetables, as vegetables picked prior to that date cannot be tithed together with vegetables picked after that date.

בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט — רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאִילָן כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ.

On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree; the fruit of a tree that was formed prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and cannot be tithed together with fruit that was formed after that date; this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel say: The New Year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

גְּמָ׳ לַמְּלָכִים, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לִשְׁטָרוֹת.

GEMARA: The New Year for kings; with regard to what halakha is it mentioned in the mishna? Why is it necessary to set a specific date to count the years of a king’s rule, rather than counting them from the day that he ascends to the throne? Rav Ḥisda said: It is for determining the validity of documents.

דִּתְנַן: שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין — פְּסוּלִין, וְהַמְאוּחָרִין — כְּשֵׁרִין.

It was the common practice to date documents in accordance with the years of the king’s rule; therefore, it was important that these years begin at a fixed time, so that one knows whether a particular document was antedated or postdated, as we learned in a mishna: Antedated promissory notes, i.e., promissory notes dated prior to the date on which the loan actually took place, are invalid because a loan document creates a lien on the borrower’s property. By dating the document earlier than the loan itself, the lender has a fraudulent mortgage on the property, which can be used against any future purchaser. Therefore, the Sages ordained that an antedated promissory note does not establish a lien, even from the true date of the loan. But postdated promissory notes bearing a date that is later than the date when the loan actually took place are valid, as postdating the note presents no opportunity for defrauding a purchaser.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלֶךְ שֶׁעָמַד בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בַּאֲדָר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֶחָד בְּנִיסָן — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה. וְאִם לֹא עָמַד אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן — אֵין מוֹנִין לוֹ שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ נִיסָן אַחֵר.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If a king ascended to the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, the month preceding Nisan, once the first of Nisan arrives, although he reigned for only one day, a year is counted toward his reign; his first year of rule is completed from the first of Nisan. But if he ascended to the throne only on the first of Nisan, one counts an additional year toward his reign only when the next Nisan arrives.

אָמַר מָר: מֶלֶךְ שֶׁעָמַד בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בַּאֲדָר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֶחָד בְּנִיסָן — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה. הָא

The Master said, citing the baraita: If a king ascended to the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, once the first of Nisan arrives a year is counted toward his reign. The Gemara comments: This

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּנִיסָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לִמְלָכִים, וְיוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה. וְאִם לֹא עָמַד אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן, אֵין מוֹנִין לוֹ שָׁנָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ נִיסָן אַחֵר. פְּשִׁיטָא!

teaches us that Nisan is the New Year for kings, and it also teaches us that one day in a year is considered a year; although this king ruled for only one day, a full year is counted toward his reign. The Gemara asks: Consider the next clause of the baraita: But if he ascended to the throne only on the first of Nisan, a year is not counted toward his reign until the next first of Nisan arrives. Isn’t this obvious?

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִימְּנוֹ עֲלֵיהּ מֵאֲדָר. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, נִימְנוֹ לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּין שְׁנִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for a case where the princes agreed to appoint him as king already in the month of Adar. Lest you say that since the decision to appoint him king was made already in Adar, once the first of Nisan arrives they should count it the second year of his reign, therefore the baraita teaches us that the count begins only from when he actually began his rule.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵת בַּאֲדָר וְעָמַד אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו בַּאֲדָר — מוֹנִין שָׁנָה לְזֶה וְלָזֶה. מֵת בְּנִיסָן וְעָמַד אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו בְּנִיסָן — מוֹנִין שָׁנָה לְזֶה וְלָזֶה. מֵת בַּאֲדָר וְעָמַד אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו בְּנִיסָן — מוֹנִין רִאשׁוֹנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן, וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשֵּׁנִי.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If the king died in the month of Adar and another king succeeded him to the throne in that same Adar, one counts the year to this one, i.e., the previous king, as his final year, and to that one, i.e., the new king who began his reign in Adar. If the first king died in the month of Nisan and another king succeeded him in that same Nisan, one counts the year to this one, the previous king, and to that one, the new king. But if the first king died in Adar and another king succeeded him in Nisan, one counts the first year to the first king as his final year, and the second year to the second king as the first year of his reign.

אָמַר מַר: מֵת בַּאֲדָר וְעָמַד אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו בַּאֲדָר — מוֹנִין שָׁנָה לְזֶה וְלָזֶה. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: שַׁתָּא לְבֵי תְרֵי לָא מָנִינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Master said: If the king died in Adar and another king succeeded him to the throne in that same Adar, one counts the year to this one, i.e., the previous king, as his final year, and to that one, i.e., the new king, as the first year of his reign. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that one year cannot be counted toward two kings, and so the entire year should be counted only toward the previous king, the baraita therefore teaches us that the years of two kings can overlap and be counted in a single year.

מֵת בְּנִיסָן וְעָמַד אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו בְּנִיסָן — מוֹנִין שָׁנָה לְזֶה וְלָזֶה. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי אָמְרִינַן יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה — בְּסוֹף שָׁנָה. אֲבָל בִּתְחִלַּת שָׁנָה — לָא אָמְרִינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara cites the next phrase of the baraita: If the first king died in Nisan and another king succeeded him in that same Nisan, one counts the year to this one, the previous king, and to that one, the new king. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that when we say that one day in a year is considered a full year, this only applies when the day is at the end of the year, i.e., since his reign will continue in the coming year the day is considered like a whole year, but if the day is at the beginning of the year we should not say that the beginning of Nisan is counted as another year for the previous king; therefore, it teaches us that there is no such a distinction.

מֵת בַּאֲדָר וְעָמַד אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו בְּנִיסָן — מוֹנִין רִאשׁוֹנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשֵּׁנִי. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִימְּנוֹ עֲלֵיהּ מֵאֲדָר, וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּן מֶלֶךְ הוּא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִימְנוֹ לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּין שְׁנִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

It was further taught in the baraita: But if the first king died in Adar and another king succeeded him in Nisan, one counts the first year to the first king as his final year, and the second year to the second king as the first year of his reign. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for a case where the princes decided to appoint him as king in Adar, and he is also a king, son of the previous king, so that his succession to the throne is automatic. Lest you say that by the time the first of Nisan arrives, two years should be counted toward his reign, it therefore teaches us that one counts only from Nisan, when he actually succeeded his father to the throne.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לַמְּלָכִים שֶׁאֵין מוֹנִין לָהֶם אֶלָּא מִנִּיסָן — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בִשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִית בְּחֹדֶשׁ זִיו הוּא הַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי לִמְלֹךְ שְׁלֹמֹה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל״. מַקִּישׁ מַלְכוּת שְׁלֹמֹה לִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם: מָה יְצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם מִנִּיסָן — אַף מַלְכוּת שְׁלֹמֹה מִנִּיסָן.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that one counts the years of kings’ reigns only from Nisan? As it is stated: “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord” (I Kings 6:1). This verse juxtaposes the reign of Solomon to the exodus from Egypt: Just as one counts the years since the exodus from Egypt from Nisan, when the Jewish people left Egypt, so too, one counts the years of Solomon’s reign from Nisan.

וִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן דְּמִנִּיסָן מָנִינַן? דִּילְמָא מִתִּשְׁרִי מָנִינַן!

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that we count the years from the exodus from Egypt themselves from Nisan? Perhaps we count them from Tishrei.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֶל הֹר הָהָר עַל פִּי ה׳ וַיָּמׇת שָׁם בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בְּאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּעַשְׁתֵּי עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה וְגוֹ׳״. מִדְּקָאֵי בְּאָב וְקָרֵי לַהּ ״שְׁנַת אַרְבָּעִים״, וְקָאֵי בִּשְׁבָט וְקָרֵי לַהּ ״שְׁנַת אַרְבָּעִים״ — מִכְּלָל דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאו תִּשְׁרֵי הוּא.

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month” (Numbers 33:38), and it is later written: “And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 1:3). From the fact that when the Bible speaks of the month of Av, which is the fifth month, it calls that year “the fortieth year,” and when it speaks of the following Shevat, it also calls that year “the fortieth year,” the implication is that the New Year does not begin in Tishrei. Were it the case that the New Year begins in Tishrei, Av and the following Shevat would not be in the same year because the year would have changed in Tishrei.

בִּשְׁלָמָא הַיְאךְ — מְפָרֵשׁ דְּלִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם, אֶלָּא הַאי, מִמַּאי דְּלִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם, דִּילְמָא לַהֲקָמַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן?

The Gemara raises an objection: Granted, in this case of Aaron’s death it is explicitly stated that the year is counted from the exodus from Egypt, as it states: “In the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt.” But with regard to this other incident of Moses’ oration, from where is it known that the year is counted from the exodus from Egypt? Perhaps it is forty years since the establishment of the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים״ ״שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים״ — לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, הָכָא נָמֵי: ״שְׁנַת אַרְבָּעִים״ ״שְׁנַת אַרְבָּעִים״ — לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה: מָה כָּאן לִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם — אַף כָּאן לִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם.

The Gemara answers: In accordance with what Rav Pappa said in a different context, that the meaning of one instance of the expression “the twentieth year” may be inferred from another instance of the expression “the twentieth year” by way of a verbal analogy, here too, the meaning of one instance of the expression “the fortieth year” may be inferred from another instance of the expression “the fortieth year” by way of a verbal analogy: Just as here, with regard to Aaron’s death, the count is from the exodus from Egypt, so too, here, with regard to Moses’ oration, although this is not stated explicitly, the count is from the exodus from Egypt.

וּמִמַּאי דְּמַעֲשֶׂה דְּאָב קָדֵים, דִּילְמָא מַעֲשֶׂה דִּשְׁבָט קָדֵים!

The Gemara raises another question: Even if this serves as proof that these two events both took place in the fortieth year from the exodus from Egypt, from where is it known that the incident of Aaron’s death in Av took place first? Perhaps the incident of Moses’ oration in Shevat took place first, in which case it is possible that the years from the Exodus are counted not from Nisan, but from Tishrei.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַחֲרֵי הַכֹּתוֹ אֶת סִיחוֹן״, וְכִי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּאַהֲרֹן אַכַּתִּי הֲוָה סִיחוֹן קַיָּים, דִּכְתִיב:

The Gemara rejects this argument: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written that Moses delivered his oration “after he had slain Sihon” (Deuteronomy 1:4), and when Aaron died Sihon was still alive, as it is written:

״וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ עֲרָד״, מָה שְׁמוּעָה שָׁמַע? שָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת אַהֲרֹן, וְנִסְתַּלְּקוּ עַנְנֵי כָּבוֹד, וּכְסָבוּר נִיתְּנָה רְשׁוּת לְהִלָּחֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּרְאוּ כׇּל הָעֵדָה כִּי גָוַע אַהֲרֹן״,

“And when the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel” (Numbers 21:1). What report did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died, and that the clouds of glory had withdrawn from the Jewish people, and he thought that he had been granted permission to wage war against the Jewish people. And this is as it is written: “And all the congregation saw that [ki] Aaron was dead, and they wept for Aaron thirty days, all the house of Israel” (Numbers 20:29).

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״וַיִּרְאוּ״, אֶלָּא ״וַיִּירָאוּ״, כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, ״כִּי״ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּאַרְבַּע לְשׁוֹנוֹת: אִי, דִּילְמָא, אֶלָּא, דְּהָא.

About this, Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read the verse as: “And they saw [vayiru]”; rather, read it as: “And they were seen [vayeira’u]” by others, because the cover of the clouds of glory had been removed from them. And the next word, “that [ki],” should be understood as meaning because, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: The word ki is used in the Bible in four senses: If, perhaps, but, and because. Therefore, the verse should be understood as follows: And all the congregation was seen, i.e., revealed, because Aaron had died. This shows that at the time of Aaron’s death Sihon was still alive; perforce, Moses’ oration, which was delivered after he had slain Sihon, must have occurred later.

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם כְּנַעַן, הָכָא סִיחוֹן! תָּנָא: הוּא סִיחוֹן, הוּא עֲרָד, הוּא כְּנַעַן. סִיחוֹן — שֶׁדּוֹמֶה לִסְיָיח בַּמִּדְבָּר, כְּנַעַן — עַל שֵׁם מַלְכוּתוֹ, וּמָה שְׁמוֹ — עֲרָד שְׁמוֹ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: עֲרָד — שֶׁדּוֹמֶה לְעָרוֹד בַּמִּדְבָּר, כְּנַעַן — עַל שֵׁם מַלְכוּתוֹ, וּמָה שְׁמוֹ — סִיחוֹן שְׁמוֹ.

The Gemara raises an objection against this proof: Is it comparable? There, the verse is speaking of Canaan, king of Arad, whereas here, the verse is speaking of Sihon. What proof, then, can be brought from the one with regard to the other? The Gemara explains: A Sage taught in a baraita: All three names are referring to the same person: He is Sihon, and he is Arad, and he is also Canaan. He was called Sihon because he was similar in his wildness to a foal [seyyaḥ] in the desert; and he was called Canaan after his kingdom, as he ruled over the Canaanite people; and what was his real name? Arad was his name. Some say an alternative explanation: He was called Arad because he was similar to a wild ass [arod] in the desert; and he was called Canaan after his kingdom; and what was his real name? Sihon was his name.

וְאֵימָא רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אִיָּיר!

The Gemara raises another question: Granted, when counting the years from the exodus from Egypt, Av and the following Shevat are both part of the same year, but it has not been established that the counting of years from the Exodus is specifically from Nisan. Say that the New Year for this purpose is in the following month, the month of Iyyar.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי נַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן מֵעַל מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדוּת״, מִדְּקָאֵי בְּנִיסָן וְקָרֵי לַהּ ״שָׁנָה שֵׁנִית״, וְקָאֵי בְּאִיָּיר וְקָרֵי לַהּ ״שָׁנָה שֵׁנִית״ — מִכְּלָל דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאו אִיָּיר הוּא!

The Gemara rejects this proposal: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was established” (Exodus 40:17), and it is written: “And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony” (Numbers 10:11). It may be argued as follows: From the fact that when the Bible speaks of Nisan, which is the first month, it calls it “the second year,” and when it speaks of the following Iyyar, which is the second month, it also calls it “the second year,” by inference, Rosh HaShana is not at the beginning of Iyyar. Were it the case that the New Year begins in Iyyar, Nisan and the following Iyyar would not occur in the same year, as the year would have changed in Iyyar.

וְאֵימָא רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה סִיוָן? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם״, וְאִם אִיתָא — ״בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית לְצֵאת וְגוֹ׳״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

The Gemara asks further: And say that the New Year for this purpose is in the third month, the month of Sivan. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “In the third month, after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, the same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai” (Exodus 19:1). And if it is so that the New Year is the beginning of Sivan, the verse should have said: In the third month, in the second year after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, as a new year had started.

וְאֵימָא תַּמּוּז! וְאֵימָא אָב! וְאֵימָא אֲדָר!

The Gemara continues: But perhaps one could say that the New Year for counting the Exodus is in the fourth month, the month of Tammuz; or say that it is in the fifth month, the month of Av; or say that it is in the twelfth month, the month of Adar. There is no clear refutation that these months are not the New Year.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מֵהָכָא: ״וַיָּחֶל לִבְנוֹת בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשֵּׁנִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְמַלְכוּתוֹ״. מַאי ״שֵׁנִי״? לָאו שֵׁנִי לְיֶרַח שֶׁמּוֹנִין בּוֹ לְמַלְכוּתוֹ?!

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: It is from here that it is derived that the years of a king’s rule are counted from Nisan, as it is stated: “And he began to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign” (II Chronicles 3:2). What is the meaning of the words “the second”? Doesn’t it mean second to the month from which Solomon’s reign is counted? This is clear proof that the years of a king’s rule are counted from the first month, i.e., the month of Nisan.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: וְאֵימָא שֵׁנִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ! אִם כֵּן, ״שֵׁנִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ״ בְּהֶדְיָא הֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.

Ravina strongly objects to this: Why not say that the words “the second” are referring to the second day of the month? The Gemara answers: If so, it should have explicitly stated: “On the second of the month,” as that is the formulation usually used in the Bible to refer to a specific day of the month.

וְאֵימָא בְּשֵׁנִי בַּשַּׁבָּת! חֲדָא, דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן שֵׁנִי בַּשַּׁבָּת דִּכְתִיב. וְעוֹד: מַקִּישׁ שֵׁנִי בָּתְרָא לְשֵׁנִי קַמָּא: מָה שֵׁנִי קַמָּא — חֹדֶשׁ, אַף שֵׁנִי בָּתְרָא — חֹדֶשׁ.

The Gemara raises another objection: Why not say that the words “the second” are referring to the second day of the week? This argument is rejected for two reasons: First, we have not found the second day of the week ever being written; nowhere does the Bible give the day of the week on which a particular event transpired. And further, the verse juxtaposes the second instance of the word “second” to the first instance of the word “second”: Just as the first “second” is referring to a month, so too, the latter “second” is referring to a month.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין מוֹנִין לָהֶם לַמְּלָכִים אֶלָּא מִנִּיסָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בִשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֶל הֹר הָהָר עַל פִּי ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בְּאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּעַשְׁתֵּי עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where is it derived that one counts the years of kings’ reigns only from the month of Nisan? As it is stated: “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord” (I Kings 6:1). And it is written: “And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month” (Numbers 33:38). And it is later written: “And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 1:3).

וּכְתִיב: ״אַחֲרֵי הַכּוֹתוֹ אֶת סִיחוֹן וְגוֹ׳״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְגוֹ׳״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּרְאוּ כׇּל הָעֵדָה כִּי גָוַע אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיְהִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית וְגוֹ׳״.

And it is written: “After he had slain Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon” (Deuteronomy 1:4). And it says: “And when the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard” (Numbers 33:40). And it says: “And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, and they wept for Aaron thirty days” (Numbers 20:29). And it says: “And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was established” (Exodus 40:17).

וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיְהִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי וְגוֹ׳״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיָּחֶל לִבְנוֹת וְגוֹ׳״.

And it says: “And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from off the Tabernacle of the testimony” (Numbers 10:11). And it says: “In the third month, after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, the same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai” (Exodus 19:1). And it says: “And he began to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign” (II Chronicles 3:2). This list of verses summarizes Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל לְמַלְכֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם — מִתִּשְׁרִי מָנִינַן, ״שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דִּבְרֵי נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה וַיְהִי בְחֹדֶשׁ כִּסְלֵיו שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בְּחֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא וְגוֹ׳״.

§ Rav Ḥisda said: They taught that the years of a king’s rule are counted from the first of Nisan only with regard to the Jewish kings of Israel, but the years of the kings of the gentile nations of the world are counted from Tishrei, as it is stated: “The words of Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Kislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the capital” (Nehemiah 1:1). And it is written: “And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him, and I took up the wine, and gave it to the king” (Nehemiah 2:1).

מִדְּקָאֵי בְּכִסְלֵיו וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ ״שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים״, וְקָאֵי בְּנִיסָן וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ ״שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים״ — מִכְּלָל דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאו נִיסָן הוּא.

From the fact that when the Bible speaks of the month of Kislev it calls it the twentieth year, and when it speaks of the following Nisan it also calls it the twentieth year, by inference, the New Year for gentile kings does not begin in Nisan. Were it the case that the New Year did begin in Nisan, Kislev and the following Nisan would not occur in the same year.

בִּשְׁלָמָא הַיְאךְ — מְפָרֵשׁ דִּלְאַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא, אֶלָּא הַאי — מִמַּאי דִּלְאַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא? דִּילְמָא

The Gemara raises an objection: Granted, in this second verse it is explicitly stated that the count relates to the years of Artaxerxes. But as for that first verse, from where is it known that the count relates to the years of Artaxerxes? Perhaps

לְמִנְיָנָא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים״ ״שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים״ — לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה: מָה הָתָם לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא, אַף הָכָא לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא.

it follows some other count. Rav Pappa said: The meaning of the first instance of the expression “the twentieth year” may be inferred from the second instance of the expression “the twentieth year” by way of a verbal analogy: Just as there the reference is to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, so too, here the reference is to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes.

וּמִמַּאי דְּמַעֲשֶׂה דְּכִסְלֵיו קָדֵים, דִּילְמָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּנִיסָן קָדֵים?

The Gemara raises another question: Even though those two events took place in the same year, from where is it known that the incident that occurred in Kislev took place first? Perhaps the incident that occurred in Nisan took place first, in which case it is possible that even the years of gentile kings are counted from Nisan.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר חֲנָנִי לִנְחֶמְיָה בְּכִסְלֵיו, אֲמָרָן נְחֶמְיָה לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּנִיסָן.

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is taught in a baraita: The words that Hanani told Nehemiah in the month of Kislev, Nehemiah told the king in the month of Nisan.

דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר חֲנָנִי לִנְחֶמְיָה בְּכִסְלֵיו — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דִּבְרֵי נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה וַיְהִי בְחֹדֶשׁ כִּסְלֵיו שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים וַאֲנִי הָיִיתִי בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה. וַיָּבֹא חֲנָנִי אֶחָד מֵאַחַי הוּא וַאֲנָשִׁים מִיהוּדָה וָאֶשְׁאָלֵם עַל הַיְּהוּדִים הַפְּלֵיטָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁאֲרוּ מִן הַשֶּׁבִי וְעַל יְרוּשָׁלִָם. וַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי הַנִּשְׁאָרִים אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁאֲרוּ מִן הַשְּׁבִי שָׁם בַּמְּדִינָה בְּרָעָה גְדוֹלָה וּבְחֶרְפָּה וְחוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלִַם מְפוֹרָצֶת וּשְׁעָרֶיהָ נִצְּתוּ בָאֵשׁ״.

The baraita explains: The words that Hanani said to Nehemiah in Kislev are as it is stated: “The words of Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah: And it came to pass in the month Kislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the capital, that Hanani, one of my brothers, came out of Judah, he and certain men; and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped, who were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem. And they said to me: The remnant who are left of the captivity there in the province suffer much hardship and insult; and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates are burned with fire” (Nehemiah 1:1–3).

אֲמָרָן נְחֶמְיָה לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּנִיסָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בְּחֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא הַמֶּלֶךְ יַיִן לְפָנָיו וָאֶשָּׂא אֶת הַיַּיִן וָאֶתְּנָה לַמֶּלֶךְ וְלֹא הָיִיתִי רַע לְפָנָיו. וַיֹּאמֶר לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ מַדּוּעַ פָּנֶיךָ רָעִים וְאַתָּה אֵינְךָ חוֹלֶה אֵין זֶה כִּי אִם רֹעַ לֵב וָאִירָא הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד. וָאוֹמַר לַמֶּלֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ לְעוֹלָם יִחְיֶה מַדּוּעַ לֹא יֵרְעוּ פָנַי אֲשֶׁר הָעִיר בֵּית קִבְרוֹת אֲבוֹתַי חֲרֵבָה וּשְׁעָרֶיהָ אוּכְּלוּ בָאֵשׁ״.

Nehemiah told these words to the king in Nisan, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him, and I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad before in his presence. And the king said to me: Why is your face sad, seeing that you are not sick? This is nothing else but sorrow of the heart. Then I was very much afraid, and I said to the king: Let the king live forever: Why should not my face be sad, when the city, the place of the tombs of my ancestors, lies waste, and its gates are consumed with fire?” (Nehemiah 2:1–3).

״וַיֹּאמֶר לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל מַה זֶּה אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ וָאֶתְפַּלֵּל אֶל אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם. וָאוֹמַר לַמֶּלֶךְ אִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב וְאִם יִיטַב עַבְדְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁלָחֵנִי אֶל יְהוּדָה אֶל עִיר קִבְרוֹת אֲבוֹתַי וְאֶבְנֶנָּה. וַיֹּאמֶר לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַשֵּׁגַל יוֹשֶׁבֶת אֶצְלוֹ עַד מָתַי יִהְיֶה מַהֲלָכְךָ וּמָתַי תָּשׁוּב וַיִּיטַב לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּשְׁלָחֵנִי וָאֶתְּנָה לוֹ זְמָן״.

“Then the king said to me: For what do you ask? So I prayed to the God of heaven. And I said to the king: If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, that you would send me to Judea, to the city of the graves of my ancestors, that I may rebuild it. And the king said to me, the consort also sitting by him: For how long shall your journey be? And when will you return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time” (Nehemiah 2:4–6).

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: ״בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ בַּשִּׁשִּׁי בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ״, וּכְתִיב: ״בַּשְּׁבִיעִי בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ״. וְאִם אִיתָא — ״בַּשְּׁבִיעִי בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלֹשׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

Rav Yosef raised an objection against the rule established by Rav Ḥisda that the years of gentile kings are counted from Tishrei from the verse that states: “On the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king” (Haggai 1:15), and it is written immediately afterward: “In the seventh month, in the second year, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the prophet Haggai, saying” (Haggai 2:1). And if it were so that the years of gentile kings are counted from Tishrei, what the verse needed to state is: In the seventh month in the third year, as a new year had already started for him.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כּוֹרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ כָּשֵׁר הָיָה, לְפִיכָךְ מָנוּ לוֹ כְּמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

Rabbi Abbahu said in answer to this objection: Cyrus was a virtuous king, and consequently Haggai counted the years of his reign like those of the kings of Israel, i.e., from Nisan.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: חֲדָא — דְּאִם כֵּן קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁיצִיא בַּיְתָא דְנָא עַד יוֹם תְּלָתָא לִירַח אֲדָר דִּי הִיא שְׁנַת שֵׁית לְמַלְכוּת דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא״, וְתַנְיָא: בְּאוֹתוֹ זְמַן לַשָּׁנָה הַבָּאָה עָלָה עֶזְרָא מִבָּבֶל וְגָלוּתוֹ עִמּוֹ, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא יְרוּשָׁלִַם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי הִיא שְׁנַת הַשְּׁבִיעִית לַמֶּלֶךְ״, וְאִם אִיתָא — ״שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִינִית״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation for two reasons: One objection is that if this is so, the verses contradict each other, as it is written: “And this house was finished on the third of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king” (Ezra 6:15), and it is taught in a baraita: At that same time in the following year Ezra went up from Babylonia together with his company of exiles. And it is written in the Bible: “And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king” (Ezra 7:8). And if it were so that this king’s years were counted like those of the kings of Israel, what the verse needed to state is: Which was in the eighth year of the king.

וְעוֹד: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם כּוֹרֶשׁ, הָכָא דָּרְיָוֶשׁ! תָּנָא: הוּא כּוֹרֶשׁ, הוּא דָּרְיָוֶשׁ, הוּא אַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא. כּוֹרֶשׁ — שֶׁמֶּלֶךְ כָּשֵׁר הָיָה, אַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא — עַל שֵׁם מַלְכוּתוֹ, וּמָה שְׁמוֹ — דָּרְיָוֶשׁ שְׁמוֹ.

And further, a second objection: Are Rav Yosef’s objection and Rabbi Abbahu’s resolution comparable? There, Rabbi Abbahu speaks of Cyrus, whereas here, the verses speak of Darius, and it was never said about Darius that he was a virtuous king. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Sages taught in a baraita: All three names are referring to the same person: He is Cyrus; he is Darius; and he is also Artaxerxes. He was called Cyrus [Koresh] because he was a virtuous [kasher] king; he was called Artaxerxes after his kingdom, i.e., this was his royal title; and what was his real name? Darius was his name.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן קוֹדֶם שֶׁהֶחְמִיץ, כָּאן לְאַחַר שֶׁהֶחְמִיץ.

The Gemara notes: In any case, it is difficult, as in one place his years are counted from Nisan, whereas in another place they are counted from Tishrei. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is not difficult, as it can be explained as follows: Here, where his years are counted from Nisan like the kings of Israel, it speaks of him before he became corrupt, whereas there, where his years are counted from Tishrei, it speaks of him after he became corrupt.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: וּמִי הֶחְמִיץ? וְהָכְתִיב:

Rav Kahana strongly objects to this explanation: Did he really become corrupt after Ezra went to Eretz Yisrael? But isn’t it written:

״וּמָה חַשְׁחָן וּבְנֵי תוֹרִין וְדִכְרִין וְאִמְּרִין לַעֲלָוָן לֶאֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא חִנְטִין מְלַח חֲמַר וּמְשַׁח כְּמֵאמַר כָּהֲנַיָּא דִי בִירוּשְׁלֶם לֶהֱוֵא מִתְיְהֵב לְהֹם יוֹם בְּיוֹם דִּי לָא שָׁלוּ״! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִצְחָק: רַבִּי, מִטּוּנָךְ: ״דִּי לֶהֱוֹן מְהַקְרְבִין נִיחוֹחִין לֶאֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא וּמְצַלַּיִן לְחַיֵּי מַלְכָּא וּבְנוֹהִי״.

“And that which they need, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt-offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests who are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail” (Ezra 6:9)? Doesn’t Cyrus’ contribution to the Temple demonstrate his fear of Heaven? Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rav Kahana: My teacher, a refutation can be brought from your own burden, from the text you yourself cited, as the next verse continues: “That they may sacrifice offerings of sweet savor to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons” (Ezra 6:10). This shows that Cyrus did this solely for his own benefit, so that the Jews would sacrifice offerings and pray for him and his sons.

וּמַאן דְּעָבֵד הָכִי לָאו מְעַלְּיוּתָא הִיא? וְהָתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר: ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיוּ בָּנַי״, וּ״בִשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֶזְכֶּה בָּהּ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר.

The Gemara asks: And one who acts in this manner, is he not acting in exemplary fashion? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one gives charity, saying: I give this sela for charity in order that my children may live, or: I give it in order that through it I may merit life in the World-to-Come, he is still considered a full-fledged righteous person? If so, what was wrong with the king bringing offerings so that the Jews would pray for his life and the life of his children?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּאן בְּגוֹיִם.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the case of one who makes his charity conditional yet is considered to be righteous, it is referring to a Jew. This is because even if his condition is not fulfilled, he will not complain to God. However, there, where Cyrus was not given credit for his good deed because it was conditional, it is referring to gentiles. A gentile may come to regret his actions and complain to God if his condition is not fulfilled.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מְנָלַן דְּאַחְמִיץ — דִּכְתִיב: ״נִדְבָּכִין דִּי אֶבֶן גְּלָל תְּלָתָא וְנִדְבָּךְ דִּי אָע חֲדַת וְנִפְקְתָא מִן בֵּית מַלְכָּא תִּתְיְהִב״, לְמָה לֵיהּ דַּעֲבַד הָכִי? סָבַר: אִי מָרְדוּ בִּי יְהוּדָאֵי — אִיקְלְיֵיהּ בְּנוּרָא.

And if you wish, say: From where do we derive that Cyrus became corrupt? As it is written with regard to the building of the Temple that he issued the following command: “Let the house be built…with three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber, and let the expense be paid out of the king’s house” (Ezra 6:4). Why did he do it in this manner and command that the Temple be built with a row of timber? He thought: If the Jews rebel against me, I will burn their Temple with fire, and it will be more flammable because of the wood.

אַטּוּ שְׁלֹמֹה לָא עֲבַד הָכִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״שְׁלֹשָׁה טוּרֵי גָזִית וְטוּר כְּרֻתוֹת אֲרָזִים״! שְׁלֹמֹה עֲבַד מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְאִיהוּ עֲבַד מִלְּמַטָּה. שְׁלֹמֹה שַׁקְּעֵיהּ בְּבִנְיָנָא, אִיהוּ לָא שַׁקְּעֵיהּ בְּבִנְיָנָא. שְׁלֹמֹה סַדְיֵיהּ בְּסִידָא, אִיהוּ לָא סַדְיֵיהּ בְּסִידָא.

The Gemara raises a question: Is that to say that Solomon did not do this very same thing when he built the first Temple? Isn’t it written: “And he built the inner court, three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams” (I Kings 6:36)? The Gemara answers: Solomon placed the wood above the stone foundation, so that even if the Temple were burned, the stone foundation would remain, whereas Cyrus placed it below, so that if he were to set fire to the Temple, the whole structure would collapse. Also, Solomon sunk the wood into the building in order to make it less flammable, whereas Cyrus did not sink it into the building. Furthermore, Solomon plastered the wood over with plaster to prevent it from catching fire, whereas Cyrus did not plaster the wood over with plaster.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מְנָלַן דְּאַחְמִיץ — מֵהָכָא: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַשֵּׁגַל יוֹשֶׁבֶת אֶצְלוֹ״. מַאי ״שֵׁגַל״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר לִימָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: כַּלְבְּתָא.

Rav Yosef said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yitzḥak who said: From where do we derive that Cyrus became corrupt? From here, as it is written: “And the king said to me, the consort [shegal] also sitting by him: For how long shall your journey be? And when will you return? So it pleased the king to send me, and I set him a time” (Nehemiah 2:6). What is the meaning of the word shegal in the verse? Rabba bar Lima said in the name of Rav: It means a she-dog that sat next to him, which he used for sexual relations.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעַל מָרֵא שְׁמַיָּא הִתְרוֹמַמְתָּ וּלְמָאנַיָּיא דִי בַיְתֵיהּ הַיְתִיו קׇדָמָךְ וְאַנְתְּ וְרַבְרְבָנָךְ שֵׁגְלָתָךְ וּלְחֵנָתָךְ חַמְרָא שָׁתַיִן בְּהוֹן״, וְאִי ״שֵׁגַל״ כַּלְבְּתָא הִיא, כַּלְבְּתָא בַּת מִשְׁתְּיָא חַמְרָא הִיא? הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּמַלְּפָא לָה וְשָׁתְיָיא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: However, if that is so, there is a contradiction from that which is written about Belshazzar: “But you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you, and your lords, your consorts [shegal] and your concubines, have drunk wine in them” (Daniel 5:23). If shegal means a she-dog, does a she-dog drink wine? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as perhaps they trained it to drink wine.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּנוֹת מְלָכִים בְּיִקְּרוֹתֶיךָ נִצְּבָה שֵׁגַל לִימִינְךָ בְּכֶתֶם אוֹפִיר״, וְאִי שֵׁגַל כַּלְבְּתָא הִיא, מַאי קָא מְבַשַּׂר לְהוּ נָבִיא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁחֲבִיבָה תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֵׁגַל לַגּוֹיִם — זְכִיתֶם לְכֶתֶם אוֹפִיר.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: However, if that is so, there is a contradiction from that which is written: “Kings’ daughters are among your favorites; upon your right hand stands a consort [shegal] in gold of Ophir” (Psalms 45:10). Now, if shegal is a she-dog, what is the prophet heralding for the Jewish people? The Gemara explains: This is what the prophet is saying: In reward for the Torah being as precious to the Jews as a she-dog is to gentiles, you merited the gold of Ophir.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם ״שֵׁגַל״ — מַלְכְּתָא הִיא, וְרַבָּה בַּר לִימָא גְּמָרָא, גְּמִיר לַהּ. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ ״שֵׁגַל״? שֶׁהָיְתָה חֲבִיבָה עָלָיו כְּשֵׁגַל. אִי נָמֵי: שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבָהּ בִּמְקוֹם שֵׁגַל.

And if you wish, say: Actually, the word shegal in all these other contexts means consort, but Rabba bar Lima had a tradition that in connection with Cyrus the word shegal means she-dog. And why was it called a consort [shegal]? It is because the dog was as precious to him as a consort; or else, because he set the dog next to him in place of a consort.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מְנָלַן דְּאַחְמִיץ — מֵהָכָא: ״עַד כְּסַף כַּכְּרִין מְאָה וְעַד חִנְטִין כּוֹרִין מְאָה וְעַד חֲמַר בַּתִּין מְאָה וְעַד בַּתִּין מְשַׁח מְאָה וּמְלַח דִּי לָא כְתָב וְגוֹ׳״. מֵעִיקָּרָא — בְּלָא קִיצּוּתָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא — בְּקִיצּוּתָא.

And if you wish, say: From where do we derive that Cyrus became corrupt? It is from here, as it is stated: “Up to a hundred talents of silver, and up to a hundred measures of wheat, and up to a hundred bat of wine, and up to a hundred bat of oil, and salt without prescribed limit” (Ezra 7:22). Initially he gave without setting a limit, but now he introduced a limit.

וְדִילְמָא מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲוָה קִים לֵיהּ בְּקִיצּוּתָא? אֶלָּא, מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּיין מֵעִיקָּרָא.

This is rejected: But perhaps initially he did not know what limit to set, as he was not familiar with the daily needs of the Temple, and afterward, when the matter became clarified, he set an appropriate limit. Rather, it is clear as we initially answered that the evidence that Cyrus became corrupt is based on his relationship with his consort rather than on his donations to the Temple.

וְלָרְגָלִים. רְגָלִים בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן הוּא? בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן הוּא! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רֶגֶל שֶׁבּוֹ, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָרְגָלִים.

§ The mishna teaches: And the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the order of the Festivals. The Gemara asks: Is the New Year for the Festivals really on the first of Nisan? Isn’t it on the fifteenth of Nisan, the first day of the festival of Passover? Rav Ḥisda said: What the mishna means is that the Festival that occurs in the month of Nisan is the New Year for Festivals.

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְנוֹדֵר, לְמֵיקַם עֲלֵיהּ בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַנּוֹדֵר, וְאֶחָד הַמַּקְדִּישׁ, וְאֶחָד הַמַּעֲרִיךְ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים — עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״.

The Gemara comments: This ruling makes a practical difference to one who makes a vow, in order to determine when he is liable for violating the prohibition: You shall not delay. And the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Whether one makes a vow to bring an offering to the Temple, or consecrates an item to the Temple, or makes a valuation, promising to pay the value of a particular person to the Temple treasury, once three Festivals have passed from that day and he has not yet fulfilled his promise, he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, as stated in the verse: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it” (Deuteronomy 23:22).

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים כְּסִדְרָן, וְחַג הַמַּצּוֹת תְּחִילָּה. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: רְגָלִים, פְּעָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה, פְּעָמִים אַרְבָּעָה, פְּעָמִים חֲמִשָּׁה. כֵּיצַד? נָדַר לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — שְׁלֹשָׁה. לִפְנֵי עֲצֶרֶת — חֲמִשָּׁה. לִפְנֵי הֶחָג — אַרְבָּעָה.

Rabbi Shimon says: One transgresses the prohibition against delaying not when any three Festivals have passed, but when three Festivals have passed in their proper order, i.e., Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, with Passover first. And, so too, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would say: The Festivals that must pass before a person is liable for violating the prohibition against delaying are sometimes three, sometimes four, and sometimes five. How so? If one made his vow before Passover they are three, as he may delay bringing his offering until the festival of Sukkot; if he made his vow before Shavuot they are five, as the counting of three Festivals begins only from the next Passover; and if he made his vow before the festival of Sukkot, they are four.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חַיָּיבֵי הַדָּמִין וְהָעֲרָכִין, הַחֲרָמִין וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים, צְדָקוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת, בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח,

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to those who are liable for vows of monetary payment, or for vows of valuations, or for dedications, or for consecrations, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, vows of charity, tithes, firstborn offerings, animal tithes, or the Paschal offering,

לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים — עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים כְּסִדְרָן, וְחַג הַמַּצּוֹת תְּחִלָּה.

or for gleanings, forgotten sheaves, or produce of the corner of the field, three obligatory agricultural gifts that must be given to the poor, once three Festivals have passed they transgress the prohibition: You shall not delay. Rabbi Shimon says: These three Festivals must be in their proper order, with the festival of Passover first.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן רֶגֶל אֶחָד — עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי רְגָלִים — עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת — עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״.

Rabbi Meir says: Once even one Festival has passed, one transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Once two Festivals have passed, one transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Once the festival of Sukkot has passed, one transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא — מִכְּדֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ סָלֵיק, לְמָה לִי לְמֶהְדַּר וּמִיכְתַּב: ״בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת וּבְחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״.

The Gemara proceeds to explain the various opinions: What is the rationale of the first tanna? Since the entire chapter (Deuteronomy, chapter 16) has just concluded a discussion of the three pilgrimage Festivals, why, after stating: “Three times a year shall all your males appear before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:16), do I need the Torah to write again: “On the festival of Passover, and on the festival of Shavuot, and on the festival of Sukkot; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed” (Deuteronomy 16:16)? Rather, learn from here that the verse comes to teach with regard to the halakha of: You shall not delay, that one does not transgress the prohibition unless these three Festivals have passed.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת״, שֶׁבּוֹ דִּיבֵּר הַכָּתוּב, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר — לוֹמַר שֶׁזֶּה אַחֲרוֹן.

And Rabbi Shimon, who said that one does not transgress the prohibition against delaying unless these three Festivals have passed in order, says in explanation of his opinion: It was not necessary for the verse to say again “on the festival of Sukkot,” of which the immediately preceding text was speaking. Why, then, is it stated? It is to teach that this must be the last one, i.e., that the three Festivals must pass in order, so that Sukkot is the last of the three.

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר — מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבָאתָ שָּׁמָּה … וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה״.

And Rabbi Meir, who says that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying as soon as one Festival has passed, what is the rationale for his opinion? It is as it is written: “But to the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, there shall you seek Him, at his dwelling, and there shall you come: And there you shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and your flocks” (Deuteronomy 12:5–6). This teaches that one transgresses the prohibition if he fails to bring the offerings for which he is liable as soon as the time has arrived that “there shall you come,” i.e., by the first Festival.

וְרַבָּנַן — הַהוּא לַעֲשֵׂה.

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who say that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have passed, how do they understand this verse? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, this verse teaches that there is a positive mitzva to bring one’s vow-offerings on the first Festival; however, if one did not bring them, he has not transgressed the prohibition against delaying, although he has failed to perform the positive mitzva.

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא אַיְיתִי וְלָא אַיְיתִי — מִמֵּילָא קָם לֵיהּ בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir counter this argument? The Gemara answers: He would say that since the Merciful One tells one to bring the offering at that time and he did not bring it, automatically he is liable for transgressing the prohibition: You shall not delay, as he has missed the time set by the Torah.

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״ — מִיעוּט מוֹעֲדִים שְׁנַיִם.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who said that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying once two Festivals have passed, what is the rationale for his opinion? The Gemara explains: It is as it is written: “These things you shall do to the Lord in your appointed times, besides your vows, and your gift offerings, for your burnt-offerings, and for your meal-offerings, and for your drink-offerings, and for your peace-offerings” (Numbers 29:39). According to this verse, the time set for the bringing of vows is at the “appointed times,” and the minimum number of appointed times in the plural is two.

וְרַבָּנַן — הַהוּא לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹנָה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה: הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל הַמּוֹעֲדִים כּוּלָּם זֶה לָזֶה, שֶׁכּוּלָּן מְכַפְּרִים עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis understand this verse? The Gemara explains: They say that the term “appointed times” is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Yona, as Rabbi Yona said: All the Festivals are equated with each other, insofar as all the goats brought as sin-offerings on the Festivals atone for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred objects, just like the goat brought as a sin-offering on the New Moon.

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת״, שֶׁבּוֹ דִּיבֵּר הַכָּתוּב, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר — לוֹמַר שֶׁזֶּה גּוֹרֵם.

The Gemara asks further: And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that once the festival of Sukkot has passed one immediately transgresses the prohibition against delaying, what is the rationale for his opinion? The Gemara explains: It is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: It was not necessary for the verse to mention “the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:16), of which the immediately preceding text was speaking. If so, why is it stated? It is to say that this Festival is what causes one to be considered late in fulfilling his vow, since by the end of the Festival he must bring all of his current vows to the Temple, whether he took his vow shortly before Sukkot or much earlier.

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: הַאי ״בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת וּבְחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת״ מַאי דָּרְשׁוּ בֵּיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מִנַּיִין לַעֲצֶרֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ תַּשְׁלוּמִין כׇּל שִׁבְעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת וּבְחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת״, מַקִּישׁ חַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת לְחַג הַמַּצּוֹת: מָה חַג הַמַּצּוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ תַּשְׁלוּמִין כׇּל שִׁבְעָה — אַף חַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ תַּשְׁלוּמִין כׇּל שִׁבְעָה.

And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what do they expound from this verse: “On the festival of Passover, and on the festival of Shavuot, and on the festival of Sukkot”? The Gemara explains: They require this verse for the halakha that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said, as Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: From where is it derived that the Shavuot offering has redress all seven days, i.e., that if one failed to bring the Festival peace-offering on the Festival itself, he has six more days to bring it? The verse states: “On the festival of Passover, and on the festival of Shavuot, and on the festival of Sukkot,” thereby equating the festival of Shavuot to the festival of Passover. Just as the festival of Passover has redress all seven days, as Passover is seven days long, so too, the festival of Shavuot has redress all seven days, during the week following the festival of Shavuot.

וְלַיקִּשׁ לְחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת: מָה לְּהַלָּן שְׁמוֹנָה — אַף כָּאן שְׁמוֹנָה! שְׁמִינִי רֶגֶל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא.

The Gemara asks: If so, draw an analogy from the festival of Shavuot to the festival of Sukkot, which is also mentioned in close proximity to it, and say: Just as below, on Sukkot, the offering may be brought for eight days, so too, here, on Shavuot, it should be possible to bring the offering for eight days. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not so, as even on Sukkot the Festival peace-offering may be brought only for seven days, as the eighth day is a separate Festival in and of itself.

אֵימוֹר דְּאָמְרִינַן שְׁמִינִי רֶגֶל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ לְעִנְיַן פָּזֵ״ר קָשֶׁ״ב, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַין תַּשְׁלוּמִין — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל תַּשְׁלוּמִין דְּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא!

The Gemara raises a question: But can’t you say that we say that the Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself only with regard to peh, zayin, reish, kuf, shin, beit, an acronym that stands for six unique aspects to the Eighth Day of Assembly. But with regard to the matter of redress for failing to bring a Festival peace-offering, everyone agrees that the Eighth Day of Assembly is still a day of redress for the first day of the festival of Sukkot.

דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁלֹּא חָג יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג — חוֹגֵג אֶת כָּל הָרֶגֶל וְיוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג.

As we learned in a mishna: If one did not bring his Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may still bring the Festival peace-offering during all of the Festival and even on the last day of the Festival, as the Eighth Day of Assembly is regarded as part of Sukkot for this purpose. If so, perhaps the festival of Shavuot can be compared to the festival of Sukkot such that the Festival peace-offering of Shavuot may also be brought for eight days.

תָּפַשְׂתָּ מְרוּבֶּה — לֹא תָּפַשְׂתָּ, תָּפַשְׂתָּ מוּעָט — תָּפַשְׂתָּ.

The Gemara answers: It is preferable to equate Shavuot to Passover and not to Sukkot due to the general principle: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. That is to say, in a case of doubt, choose the smaller number, as it is included within the larger number.

אֶלָּא לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא כַּתְבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת? לְאַקּוֹשֵׁיהּ לְחַג הַמַּצּוֹת:

The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to what halakha did the Merciful One write the festival of Sukkot in this verse? The Gemara explains: It is to draw an analogy from Sukkot to the festival of Passover with regard to a different issue:

מָה חַג הַמַּצּוֹת טָעוּן לִינָה — אַף חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת טָעוּן לִינָה.

Just as the festival of Passover requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem, and only on the following day may one return home, so too, the festival of Sukkot requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem before returning home.

וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּפָנִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶיךָ״.

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to Passover, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara explains: As it is written about the Paschal offering: “And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents” (Deuteronomy 16:7).

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן (בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר) — תַּשְׁלוּמִין לַעֲצֶרֶת מְנָא לְהוּ?

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita and Rabbi Shimon, who learn from the verse: “On the festival of Passover, and on the festival of Shavuot, and on the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:16), that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have passed, from where do they derive the halakha that the Shavuot offering has redress for seven days?

נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה מְנֵה יָמִים וְקַדֵּשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, מְנֵה יָמִים וְקַדֵּשׁ עֲצֶרֶת. מָה חֹדֶשׁ לִמְנוּיָו — אַף עֲצֶרֶת לִמְנוּיָו.

The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which Rabba bar Shmuel taught, as Rabba bar Shmuel taught: The Torah states to count the days, as it is stated: “A month of days” (Numbers 11:20), and then sanctify a new month with offerings. And the Torah also said to count the days from Passover, as it is stated: “You shall count fifty days” (Leviticus 23:16), and then sanctify the festival of Shavuot with offerings. Just as the new month is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one day, so too, Shavuot is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one full week, as it is stated: “Seven complete weeks shall there be” (Leviticus 23:15).

אֵימָא עֲצֶרֶת חַד יוֹמָא? אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ עֲצֶרֶת יוֹמֵי מָנִינַן, שָׁבוּעֵי לָא מָנִינַן? וְהָאָמַר מָר: מִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי יוֹמֵי, וּמִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי שָׁבוּעֵי. וְעוֹד: ״חַג שָׁבוּעוֹת״ כְּתִיב.

The Gemara asks: But if so, say that the Shavuot offering may be redressed for only one day, as Shavuot is determined by a count of fifty days from Passover. How, then, is it known that the Shavuot offering has seven days for redress? Rava said: Is that to say that we count only days until Shavuot, but we do not also count weeks? But didn’t the Master say: It is a mitzva to count fifty days, and it is also a mitzva to count seven weeks, which teaches that the Festival peace-offering brought on Shavuot may be sacrificed for an entire week. And further, it is written in the verse: “The festival of weeks [Shavuot],” which teaches that it is a Festival that is established through a count of weeks.

וּפֶסַח בַּר מִיקְרַב בִּרְגָלִים הוּא? פֶּסַח זִימְנָא קְבִיעָא לֵיהּ, אִי אַקְרְבֵיהּ — אַקְרְבֵיהּ, וְאִי לָא אַקְרְבֵיהּ — אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ!

§ It was taught in the baraita that one becomes liable for transgressing the prohibition against delaying if he delays bringing the Paschal lamb. The Gemara expresses its astonishment about this ruling: But is the Paschal lamb fit to be sacrificed on the other Festivals? The Paschal lamb has a fixed time to be brought, on the fourteenth of Nisan; if one sacrificed it then, he has sacrificed it, but if he did not sacrifice it then, it is excluded forever from any use.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: פֶּסַח כְּדִי נַסְבֵהּ.

Rav Ḥisda said: The Paschal lamb is cited here for no reason [kedi]; that is to say, the prohibition against delaying is not relevant to the Paschal lamb, and the latter was mentioned in the baraita only because firstborn offerings, animal tithes, and the Paschal lamb are often grouped together.

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: מַאי ״פֶּסַח״ — שַׁלְמֵי פֶסַח.

Rav Sheshet said a different explanation: What is meant here by a Paschal lamb? It is the peace-offering that is brought in place of a Paschal lamb. If a lamb that had been set aside to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering was lost, and its owner took another lamb and sacrificed that as his Paschal lamb, and afterward the first animal was found, it must now be brought as a peace-offering. This offering is subject to all the halakhot of the prohibition against delaying.

אִי הָכִי — הַיְינוּ שְׁלָמִים! תְּנָא שְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת פֶּסַח, וּתְנָא שְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמֵחֲמַת פֶּסַח קָאָתוּ,

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the peace-offerings listed earlier, and it is still redundant. The Gemara answers: The baraita taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought in place of a Paschal lamb, and it also taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought independently. The reason for this repetition is that it might enter your mind to say: Since the peace-offerings are brought in place of a Paschal lamb,

כְּפֶסַח דָּמוּ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

they are considered like the Paschal lamb itself, and so one transgresses the prohibition against delaying as soon as one Festival has passed. The baraita therefore teaches us that this is not so, as even this type of peace-offering is treated like the other offerings, and there is no liability until three Festivals have passed.

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי תִדּוֹר נֶדֶר״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נֶדֶר. נְדָבָה מִנַּיִן?

§ The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that all the offerings and vows listed above in the baraita are subject to the prohibition against delaying? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will surely require it from you, and it would be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22). From the words “when you shall vow a vow,” I have derived only the halakha in the case of a vow-offering, where one says: I undertake to bring an offering, thereby assuming personal responsibility to bring an offering, no matter what happens to any particular animal. But as for the case of a gift-offering, one says: I undertake to bring this animal as an offering. He assumes responsibility only to bring that particular animal, without assuming a general responsibility to bring an offering. From where do I derive that this, too, is included in the prohibition against delaying?

נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״נֶדֶר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אִם נֶדֶר אוֹ נְדָבָה״. מָה לְהַלָּן — נְדָבָה עִמּוֹ, אַף כָּאן — נְדָבָה עִמּוֹ.

The Gemara now analyzes the words of Deuteronomy 23:22 cited above and looks at each component. It is stated here: “Vow,” and it is stated elsewhere: “But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a gift-offering” (Leviticus 7:16). Just as there a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha, so too, here, a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha.

״לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ הַדָּמִין הָעֲרָכִין וְהַחֲרָמִין וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. ״לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״ — הוּא וְלֹא חִילּוּפָיו. ״כִּי דָרוֹשׁ יִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ״ — אֵלּוּ חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים.

The verse continues: “To the Lord your God.” This is referring to various types of consecrations that are allocated to Temple maintenance: Assessments, valuations, dedications, and consecrations. “You shall not delay paying it” teaches that one violates the prohibition against delaying if he is late in paying it, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, as will be explained below. “For the Lord your God will surely require it from you” comes to include all other things that one is required to bring; these are sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings.

״ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ צְדָקוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּבְכוֹר. ״מֵעִמָּךְ״ — זֶה לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה. ״וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא״ — וְלֹא בְּקׇרְבָּנְךָ חֵטְא.

The words in the verse: “For the Lord your God” are an apparently superfluous phrase that in fact comes to include additional things in the prohibition; these are vows of charity, and tithes, and firstborn offerings. “From you”; this comes to include other items that one gives of one’s own for the sake of a mitzva, i.e., gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corner of the field. “And it would be sin in you”; this teaches that the sin of delaying would be in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering is not disqualified due to the delay.

אָמַר מָר: ״לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״ — הוּא וְלֹא חִילּוּפָיו. חִילּוּפֵי מַאי? אִי חִילּוּפֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים — מִקְרָב קָרְבִי.

The Gemara clarifies certain points in the baraita. The Master said, citing the baraita: “You shall not delay paying it” teaches that one violates the prohibition if he is late in paying it, i.e., the original offering, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, i.e., an animal that substituted for his offering. The Gemara asks: A substitute for what offering? If you say that the baraita is speaking of a substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside to serve as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is sacrificed just like the first, and so it is certainly subject to the prohibition against delaying.

אִי חִילּוּפֵי חַטָּאת, לְמִיתָה אָזְלָא. אֶלָּא מַאי חִילּוּפָיו — חִילּוּפֵי תוֹדָה.

If the baraita is referring to a substitute for a sin-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside as a sin-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is left to die, as it has become disqualified and can no longer be sacrificed on the altar. This being the case, there is no reason to say that it is subject to the prohibition against delaying. Rather, what is the substitute referred to in the baraita? It is the substitute for a thanks-offering.

דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן — חֲבֶרְתָּהּ אֵין לָהּ תַּקָּנָה.

As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita: In the case of a thanks-offering that became mixed up with its substitute, i.e., one substituted an animal for one designated as a thanks-offering, in which case both animals are considered consecrated, and then the original animal and its substitute became mixed up with each other, and one of them died, there is no remedy for the other one, and so it must be left to graze until it becomes blemished.

הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לַיקְרְבַהּ וְלַיקְרֵיב לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ — דִּלְמָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא. לַיקְרְבַהּ בְּלָא לֶחֶם — דִּלְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא.

The Gemara explains: What could he have done with the remaining animal? If you say that he may sacrifice it and sacrifice the bread with it, i.e., the forty loaves of bread that are brought as a meal-offering together with the animal component of the thanks-offering, perhaps this animal is not the one that had originally been set aside but rather the substitute, and the rule is that the substitute is sacrificed like the thanks-offering itself, but without bread. If you say that he should sacrifice it without bread, perhaps it is the original thanks-offering, which must be brought with bread. This, then, is the substitute that the baraita says is not subject to the prohibition against delaying.

וְהָא כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בַּת הַקְרָבָה הִיא, קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But since the animal is not fit to be sacrificed, why do I need a special verse to exclude it from the prohibition against delaying? In any case it cannot be sacrificed on the altar, and so there is no need to state that it is not included in the prohibition.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְעוֹלָם לְמַעוֹטֵי חִילּוּפֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי רְגָלִים וְהוּמַם, וְחִילְּלוֹ עַל אַחֵר, וְעָבַר עָלָיו רֶגֶל אֶחָד. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִכֹּחַ קַמָּא קָאָתֵי — כְּמַאן דְּעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rav Sheshet said: Actually, you can say that the verse comes to exclude the substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering. And here we are dealing with a case where two Festivals already passed from the time that one had consecrated the original animal but did not bring it to the altar, and it became blemished, and he redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, as required. And then another Festival passed and he did not yet bring the substitute to the altar. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, as it was consecrated as a substitute for it, it should be considered as one for which three Festivals have already passed; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the three Festivals are counted from the time of the replacement animal’s consecration.

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו רֶגֶל אֶחָד עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּמַם בְּתוֹךְ הָרֶגֶל, וְחִילְּלוֹ, וְעָבַר עָלָיו הָרֶגֶל. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִכֹּחַ קַמָּא קָאָתֵי — כְּמַאן דְּעָבַר עֲלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ רֶגֶל דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: This answers the question of which substitute the baraita is referring to according to the opinion of the Rabbis, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Once even the first Festival has passed one transgresses the mitzva: You shall not delay, what is there to say here? Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the original animal became blemished during the Festival, and one redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, and the Festival passed without that animal being sacrificed. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, and the first one had already been consecrated before the Festival, it should be considered as one for which an entire Festival has already passed, so that he transgresses the prohibition against delaying; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, an entire Festival must pass for the replacement animal.

״וְהָיָה בְּךָ חֵטְא״, וְלֹא בְּקׇרְבָּנְךָ חֵטְא. וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מִדַּאֲחֵרִים נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: יָכוֹל יְהֵא בְּכוֹר שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ כִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְיִפָּסֵל —

§ It was taught in the baraita: The verse states: “And it would be sin in you,” which teaches that the sin of delaying would be sin in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering would not become disqualified due to the delay. The Gemara asks: Is it from here that this is learned? But isn’t it derived from the statement of Aḥerim? As it is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say that one might have thought that a firstborn animal after its first year passed, during which time it was not sacrificed, should be like consecrated things that have become disqualified due to a blemish, and so it is disqualified from being brought to the altar.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירוֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכוֹרוֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ״, מַקִּישׁ בְּכוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂר: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אַף בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.

Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborns of your herds, and of your flocks” (Deuteronomy 14:23), thereby juxtaposing a firstborn animal to the tithe of grain. Just as tithe is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, as it is explicitly stated that tithes may be eaten until the end of three years, so too, a firstborn animal is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, despite the delay in being brought to the altar. Therefore, there is another source for the halakha that the offering itself does not become disqualified even if it is brought late.

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּכוֹר, דְּלָאו בַּר הַרְצָאָה הוּא, אֲבָל קׇדָשִׁים, דִּבְנֵי הַרְצָאָה נִינְהוּ — אֵימָא לָא לִירַצּוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers: The first derivation cited was necessary. Had this halakha been learned only from the case of a firstborn animal, it might enter your mind to say that this halakha that the offering is not disqualified applies only to a firstborn, which is not for appeasement, i.e., it does not come to atone for any sin, not even for the neglect of a positive mitzva, but is merely a gift for the priest. But as for other consecrated animals, which appease, their role being to atone for the sins of their owners, one might say that they do not appease when brought late. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the other offerings are also not disqualified when brought late.

וְאַכַּתִּי,

The Gemara asks further: But still, it may be argued that this derivation is unnecessary,

מִדְּבֶן עַזַּאי נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״אוֹתוֹ״

as this halakha is derived from that which ben Azzai said, as it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: The verse states: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who offers it, it shall be piggul” (Leviticus 7:18).

מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אַף מְאַחֵר נִדְרוֹ בְּ״בַל יֵרָצֶה״, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתוֹ״ — אוֹתוֹ בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, וְאֵין מְאַחֵר נִדְרוֹ בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״,

For what purpose does the verse state the word “it”? Since elsewhere it states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will surely require it from you, and it would be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22), I might have interpreted from this verse that even one who is late in paying his vow is included in: It shall not be accepted. Therefore, the verse states “it.” It, an offering disqualified by improper intention [piggul], is included in the halakha of: “It shall not be accepted,” but the animal of one who is late in paying his vow is not included in the halakha of: “It shall not be accepted.”

אֶלָּא: ״בְּךָ חֵטְא״ — וְלֹא בְּאִשְׁתְּךָ חֵטְא.

The Gemara rejects what was said above; rather, the explanation of the verse is as follows. The phrase: “And it would be sin in you” comes to teach that there would be a sin in you, but there would not be a sin in your wife.

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֵתָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מְבַקְּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ מָמוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם אֵין לְךָ לְשַׁלֵּם לָמָּה יִקַּח מִשְׁכָּבְךָ מִתַּחְתֶּיךָ״, אֵימָא בְּהַאי עָוֹן דְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״ נָמֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵתָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

It was necessary to say that the lateness is not imputed to the other members of one’s household for the following reason: It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some say that it was Rabbi Elazar who said: A person’s wife dies only because others demand of him money and he does not have means with which to pay, as it is stated about one who commits himself to guarantee a loan: “If you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?” (Proverbs 22:27). The verse warns one who takes a loan that incurring debt may result in one losing the very sheets that he sleeps on to his creditor. The Gemara understands this homiletically: Why should you cause God to take away your wife, i.e., she who shares your bed, so that she dies? Consequently, you might say that one’s wife also dies for this transgression of the prohibition: You shall not delay, in that one fails to fulfill his commitment. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, this sin is imputed to him alone.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, ״תִּשְׁמוֹר״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, ״וְעָשִׂיתָ״ — אַזְהָרָה לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁיְּעַשּׂוּךְ, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״ — זֶה נֶדֶר, ״לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים, ״נְדָבָה״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ״ — אֵלּוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, ״בְּפִיךְ״ — זוֹ צְדָקָה.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That which is gone out of your lips you shall keep and do; as you have vowed as a gift to the Lord your God, which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). “That which is gone out of your lips”; this is a positive mitzva. “You shall keep”; this is a prohibition, as the phrase “you shall keep” is a warning to keep oneself from sinning. “And do”; this is an admonition to the court to make you fulfill your vow. “As you have vowed”; this is referring to a vow-offering. “To the Lord your God”; this is referring to sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings, teaching that one must keep his word and bring them. “As a gift”; this is understood in its literal sense to be referring to a gift-offering. “Which you have promised”; this is referring to objects consecrated for Temple maintenance. “With your mouth”; this is referring to vows of charity, to which one commits himself with his mouth.

אָמַר מָר: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. לְמָה לִי? מִ״וּבָאתָ שָּׁמָּה … וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה״ נָפְקָא! ״תִּשְׁמוֹר״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. לְמָה לִי? מִ״לֹּא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״ נָפְקָא!

The Gemara clarifies the details mentioned in this baraita. The Master said: “That which is gone out of your lips”; this is a positive mitzva. Why do I need this derivation? Isn’t the positive mitzva derived from the verse: “And there you shall come; and there you shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift-offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:5–6)? The baraita continues: “You shall keep”; this is a prohibition. Why do I need this derivation; this is derived from the verse: “You shall not delay paying it” (Deuteronomy 23:22).

״וְעָשִׂיתָ״ — אַזְהָרָה לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁיְּעַשּׂוּךְ. לְמָה לִי? מִ״יַּקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ״ נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״יַקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. יָכוֹל בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״, הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.

“And do”; this is a warning to the court to make you fulfill your vow. Why do I need this derivation? This rule is derived from the verse: “He shall offer it” (Leviticus 1:3), as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “He shall offer it,” which teaches that he must be forced to bring his offering. One might have thought that he may be forced to bring his offering even against his will. Therefore, the verse states: “In accordance with his will” (Leviticus 1:3). How so? The court coerces him until he says: I want to bring the offering. Now, since all of these halakhot are already known from other sources, what is the point of this repetition?

חַד, דַּאֲמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ, וְחַד, אַפְרֵישׁ וְלָא אַקְרֵיב.

The Gemara answers: One set of verses is referring to a case where one said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, and one set of verses is referring to a case where he set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אֲמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קַיְּימֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ, אֲבָל אַפְרֵישׁ וְלָא אַקְרֵיב, אֵימָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ — בֵּי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ. צְרִיכָא.

And it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases, as had the Torah taught us only about the halakha of the case where one said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed because he did not keep his word; however, if he set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar, one might say that anywhere that it is, it is in the treasure house of the Merciful One, as the world and everything in it belongs to God, and therefore it makes no difference if he delays in bringing it to the Temple. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that even when one has set aside a specific animal he transgresses the prohibition.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אַפְרֵישׁ וְלָא אַקְרֵיב, דְּקָא מַשְׁהֵי לֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ, אֲבָל אָמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ, אֵימָא דִּיבּוּרָא לֹא כְּלוּם הוּא. צְרִיכָא.

And had the Torah taught us only about the case where one set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed because he is keeping the animal for himself. But if he said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, one might say that his mere speech is nothing, and there is no transgression provided he has not actually set aside an animal. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases.

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּאָמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ? וְהָא נְדָבָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: אֵי זֶהוּ נֶדֶר — הָאוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה — הָאוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can you say that the Gemara is dealing with a case where one merely said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal? Isn’t a gift-offering mentioned in the verse, and we learned in a mishna: What is a vow-offering? It is an offering brought by one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering. And what is a gift-offering? It is an offering brought by one who says, concerning a particular animal: I undertake to bring this animal as a burnt-offering.

וּמָה בֵּין נֶדֶר לִנְדָבָה? נֶדֶר, מֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ. נְדָבָה, מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

And what is the difference between a vow-offering and a gift-offering? With regard to vow-offerings, if the animal died or was stolen, the one who took the vow is obligated to pay restitution for it. He undertook to bring a burnt-offering without specifying the animal, and therefore until he brings that offering he is not absolved of his obligation. With regard to a gift-offering, however, if the animal died or was stolen, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it because he undertook to bring a specific animal, and that is no longer possible. In the case of a gift-offering, then, a specific animal must have already been set aside as an offering.

אָמַר רָבָא: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵינִי חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

Rava said: You can find a case of a gift-offering where a specific animal has not yet been set aside; for example, where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that after I set an animal aside in fulfillment of my vow, I will not be liable to replace it should the animal die or be stolen.

״בְּפִיךְ״ — זוֹ צְדָקָה. אָמַר רָבָא: וּצְדָקָה — מִיחַיַּיב עֲלַהּ לְאַלְתַּר. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּהָא קָיְימִי עֲנִיִּים.

§ The baraita stated: “With your mouth”; this is referring to vows of charity. Rava said: In the case of vows of charity, one is liable immediately if he is late in distributing the charity that he had promised to give. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that poor people to whom the charity may be given exist in all places, and so the charity can be distributed to them immediately, unlike an offering, which must be brought to the Temple.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִנְיָינָא דְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיבָא, עַד דְּעָבְרִי עֲלַהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים כְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הָתָם הוּא דִּתְלִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּרְגָלִים, אֲבָל הָכָא לָא — דְּהָא שְׁכִיחִי עֲנִיִּים.

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that charity must be given to the poor without delay. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that since the halakha pertaining to vows of charity is written in the passage dealing with offerings, perhaps one does not transgress the prohibition against delaying until three Festivals have passed, as is the halakha with regard to offerings, therefore Rava teaches us that this is not so. Rather, there, with regard to the offerings, the Merciful One made the timing of the transgression dependent upon the time of the Festivals, when one must go on pilgrimage to the Temple. However, here, with regard to charity vows, this is not so because poor people who are ready to accept charity are found in all places.

אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו רֶגֶל אֶחָד — עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה.

Rava said: Although, according to most opinions one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have elapsed, once even one Festival has passed and he has not sacrificed the offerings that he vowed to bring, he immediately violates a positive mitzva.

מֵיתִיבִי: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס עַל וָלָד שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס: אֲנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לָנוּ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים וַאֲכַלְנוּהָ בַּפֶּסַח, וְאָכַלְנוּ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג.

The Gemara raises an objection from the following mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papeyyas testified about the offspring of peace-offerings. They said that if the mother animal was consecrated before it conceived or during its pregnancy, the offspring, too, must be sacrificed as a peace-offering. Rabbi Papeyyas said: I testify that we once had a cow that was sacrificed as a peace-offering, and we ate it on Passover [beFesaḥ], and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival [beḤag], i.e., on Sukkot.

בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּפֶסַח לָא אַקְרְבוּהּ, אֵימוֹר דִּמְחוּסָּר זְמַן הֲוָה. אֶלָּא וַלְדַּהּ בַּעֲצֶרֶת הֵיכִי מַשְׁהִי לֵהּ וְעָבְרִי עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲשֵׂה!

The Gemara clarifies the details of this story: Granted, on Passover itself Rabbi Papeyyas and his family did not sacrifice the offspring, as one can say that the animal was lacking the requisite time, i.e., it was less than eight days old, and it is prohibited to sacrifice such a young animal. But how could they delay and not sacrifice the offspring on Shavuot, the first Festival after Passover, if, according to Rava, they would violate a positive mitzva as soon as the first Festival passed?

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּגוֹן

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: For example, this occurs

שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֶה בָּעֲצֶרֶת. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַאי ״וְאָכַלְנוּ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג״ דְּקָתָנֵי — חַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת.

in a case where the offspring was sick on Shavuot, and therefore it could be brought to the altar only on the next Festival. Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the statement: And we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival, coming to teach? This is not referring to the festival of Sukkot, which is the usual meaning of the term the Festival; rather, it is referring to the festival of Shavuot. Therefore, there is no difficulty here whatsoever.

וְאִידַּךְ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּתָנֵי פֶּסַח, תָּנֵי עֲצֶרֶת.

The Gemara asks: And what does the other amora, Rav Zevid, say to this? He argues that anywhere that the tanna teaches a halakha concerning Passover using the term Pesaḥ, he teaches the halakha concerning Shavuot using the term Atzaret, not the term Ḥag. In such a context, the term Ḥag is reserved exclusively for Sukkot.

אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים, בְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״. מֵיתִיבִי: אֶחָד בְּכוֹר, וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם שָׁנָה בְּלֹא רְגָלִים, רְגָלִים בְּלֹא שָׁנָה — עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״.

Rava said: Once three Festivals have passed, every day he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. The Gemara raises an objection from that which is taught in the following baraita: In the case of both a firstborn animal and all consecrated animals, once a year has passed without three Festivals, or three Festivals have passed without a year elapsing, the owner transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay.

וְהַאי מַאי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַאן דְּקָא מוֹתֵיב — שַׁפִּיר קָא מוֹתֵיב: מִכְּדֵי תַּנָּא אַלָּאוֵי קָא מְהַדַּר, לִיתְנֵי: בְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״.

The Gemara first expresses its astonishment at the question itself: What is this objection? What is the comparison between this ruling and the statement of Rava? Rav Kahana said: He who raises an objection here raises a valid objection, and this is the way the question should be understood. Since the tanna of the baraita is looking for prohibitions to add, and he shows that the prohibition applies in additional cases, then if Rava is correct, let the tanna of the baraita teach that once three Festivals have passed he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, every single day.

וְאִידַּךְ — תַּנָּא לְמִיקְבְּעֵיהּ בְּלָאו קָא מְהַדַּר, בְּלָאוֵי יְתֵירִי לָא קָא מְהַדַּר.

And how does the other amora, Rava, explain the baraita? He understands that the tanna is trying to establish the action only as subject to a prohibition, i.e., he merely wishes to set the parameters of the prohibition; but once the action is established as prohibited, he is not looking for additional prohibitions.

גּוּפָא: אֶחָד בְּכוֹר וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם שָׁנָה בְּלֹא רְגָלִים, רְגָלִים בְּלֹא שָׁנָה — עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״. בִּשְׁלָמָא רְגָלִים בְּלֹא שָׁנָה מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, אֶלָּא שָׁנָה בְּלֹא רְגָלִים הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above, which stated: In the case of both a firstborn animal and all consecrated animals, once a year has passed, even if three Festivals have not passed, or once three Festivals have passed, even if a whole year has not passed, the owner transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. Granted, it is possible to have three Festivals without a year; you find it because three Festivals can pass in half a year, between Passover and Sukkot. But a year without three Festivals, under what circumstances can you find this case? How can a year pass without three Festivals also passing?

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ כְּסִדְרָן, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּסִדְרָן, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

The Gemara clarifies the question: This works out well according to the one who is of the opinion that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only if the three Festivals have passed in their proper order. You can find a year without three Festivals in their proper order, e.g., if one made his vow shortly before Shavuot, in which case the year will end before Shavuot the following year, but three Festivals in order will not have elapsed until Sukkot of the third year. But according to the one who is not of the opinion that the three Festivals must be in their proper order, under what circumstances can you find this case of a year without three Festivals?

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּשָׁנָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת. דְּתַנְיָא: ״שָׁנָה תְּמִימָה״, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מוֹנֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁשִּׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה יוֹם כְּמִנְיָן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה,

The Gemara clarifies again: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, you find a year without three Festivals in a leap year, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of houses of walled cities, with regard to which an owner is given only one year to redeem his home if he sells it, after which it becomes the permanent possession of the purchaser, the verse states: “And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year” (Leviticus 25:30). How is the year determined? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One counts 365 days like the number of the days in a solar year, and not the usual lunar year, which is why it is called a full year.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹנֶה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם, וְאִם נִתְעַבְּרָה שָׁנָה — נִתְעַבְּרָה לוֹ. מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לְרַבִּי דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ בָּתַר חַג הַמַּצּוֹת, דְּכִי מְטָא שִׁילְהֵי אֲדָר בָּתְרָאָה — שָׁנָה מַלְיָא, רְגָלִים לָא מְלוּ. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

And the Rabbis disagree and say: One counts twelve months from day to day, from the date of the sale until that same date twelve months later, and if it is a leap year with an added month, the leap month is for the seller’s benefit, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house. You can find a year without three Festivals according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. How so? It is possible in a case where one consecrated the animal after the festival of Passover, so that once he reaches the end of the second month of Adar in a leap year, the year is completed, but the Festivals are not yet completed, as the third Festival is still to come. But according to the Sages, under what circumstances can you find this case of a year without three Festivals?

כִּדְתָנֵי רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: עֲצֶרֶת פְּעָמִים חֲמִשָּׁה, פְּעָמִים שִׁשָּׁה, פְּעָמִים שִׁבְעָה. הָא כֵּיצַד? שְׁנֵיהֶן מְלֵאִין — חֲמִשָּׁה, שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲסֵרִין — שִׁבְעָה, אֶחָד מָלֵא וְאֶחָד חָסֵר — שִׁשָּׁה.

The Gemara answers: As Rav Shemaya taught in a baraita: Shavuot sometimes occurs on the fifth of Sivan, sometimes on the sixth of Sivan, and sometimes on the seventh. How so? If both the months of Nisan and Iyyar are full months of thirty days each, the festival of Shavuot, which is celebrated fifty days after the second day of Passover, occurs on the fifth of Sivan; if both months are short, with twenty-nine days each, it occurs on the seventh of Sivan; and if one of them is full and the other is short, it occurs on the sixth of Sivan. According to this opinion, if both months were full and the festival of Shavuot occurred on the fifth day of Sivan, and one made his vow on the day after Shavuot, i.e., the sixth of Sivan, and in the following year both months were short, so that the festival of Shavuot occurred on the seventh of Sivan, a whole year would have passed without three Festivals.

וּמַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמַעְיָה — אֲחֵרִים הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בֵּין עֲצֶרֶת לַעֲצֶרֶת, אֵין בֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים בִּלְבַד. וְאִם הָיְתָה שָׁנָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת — חֲמִשָּׁה.

The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rav Shemaya and says that a year has a fixed number of days? It is Aḥerim, as it is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say: The difference between Shavuot of one year and Shavuot of the following year, and similarly, between Rosh HaShana of one year and Rosh HaShana of the following year, is only four days of the week. There are 354 days in a lunar year, which are divided into twelve alternating months, six months that are thirty days long and six months that are twenty-nine days long. Therefore, every year is fifty weeks and four days long. And if it were a leap year, in which case the year is comprised of 383 days, or fifty-four weeks and five days, there is a difference of five days between them.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: יוֹרֵשׁ, מַהוּ בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״? ״כִּי תִדּוֹר נֶדֶר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לָא נְדַר, אוֹ דִלְמָא: ״וּבָאתָ שָּׁמָּה וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה״, וְהָא מִיחַיַּיב.

§ Rabbi Zeira asks: In the case of an heir, what is the halakha with regard to the prohibition of: You shall not delay? That is to say, does an heir transgress the prohibition against delaying a vow taken by his father? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Is it that the Merciful One states in the Torah: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it” (Deuteronomy 23:22), and this one, the heir, did not make a vow? Or perhaps the essence of the mitzva is as it says: “And there you shall come; and there you shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices” (Deuteronomy 12:5–6), and this one, the heir, is obligated to come and bring his father’s offerings.

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא — ״מֵעִמָּךְ״, פְּרָט לְיוֹרֵשׁ.

Come and hear an answer to this, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita that says: The verse states: “For the Lord your God will surely require it from you” (Deuteronomy 23:22), which is interpreted to mean: To the exclusion of an heir. This teaches that an heir does not transgress the prohibition against delaying a vow taken by his father.

וְהַאי ״מֵעִמָּךְ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, זֶה לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה! קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״עִמָּךְ״, וּקְרִי בֵּיהּ ״מֵעִמָּךְ״.

The Gemara asks: But this phrase “from you” is necessary to teach a different halakha, namely, that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying even for gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce of the corner of his field. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥiyya derived two halakhot from this word. He read into the verse: “You [imakh],” which he expounded as coming to include gleanings, forgotten sheaves and the produce of the corner of the field in the prohibition, and he read into the verse: “From you [me’imakh],” with the extra letter mem coming to exclude an heir.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִשָּׁה, מַה הִיא בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״? מִי אָמְרִינַן: הָא לָא מִיחַיְּיבָא בִּרְאִיָּה, אוֹ דִלְמָא הָא אִיתַהּ בְּשִׂמְחָה?

§ Rabbi Zeira asks another question on this topic: In the case of a woman who made a vow, what is the halakha with regard to the prohibition: You shall not delay? The Gemara explains: Do we say that since she is not obligated to appear in the Temple on the pilgrimage Festivals, as this obligation is a positive, time-bound mitzva, from which women are exempt, she also does not transgress if she is late in bringing her offering? Or perhaps, since she is obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival, she should also be obligated in some of the other mitzvot connected to the day?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָא אִיתַהּ בְּשִׂמְחָה. וּמִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִשָּׁה — בַּעֲלָהּ מְשַׂמְּחָהּ! לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא קָאָמַר.

Abaye said to him: Derive this from the fact that she is also obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival. The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say this, that a woman is obligated to rejoice on a Festival? But didn’t Abaye say: As for a woman, her husband must make her joyful on a Festival? This means that the obligation falls not on the woman, but upon her husband. The Gemara answers: Abaye stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira holds that women are bound by a positive mitzva to rejoice on a Festival. Since, according to Rabbi Zeira’s opinion, they are obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival, they are also subject to the prohibition: You shall not delay.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּכוֹר, מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לוֹ שָׁנָה? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד, רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּרְאָה לְהַרְצָאָה.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a firstborn animal, from when does one begin to count a year with regard to the prohibition against delaying? Abaye said: One counts from the time it is born. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: One counts from the time it is fit for appeasement, i.e., from its eighth day, when it is fit to be brought as an offering, as explicitly stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 22:27).

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: הָא בְּתָם,

The Gemara comments: The two Sages do not disagree. This one, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who said that one counts from the time that the animal is fit for appeasement, is speaking about an unblemished firstborn, which must be brought to the altar for sacrifice.

הָא בְּבַעַל מוּם.

That one, Abaye, who said that one counts from the time that the animal is born, is speaking about a blemished animal. Since it was already fit to be slaughtered from the day of its birth, if one does not give it to the priest within a year of that day he transgresses the prohibition against delaying.

בַּעַל מוּם מִי מָצֵי אָכֵיל לֵיהּ? דְּקִים לֵיהּ בֵּיהּ שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו.

The Gemara asks: Can an animal with a blemish really be eaten immediately on the day that it is born? Isn’t there a requirement to wait eight days before slaughtering it, in order to ascertain that the animal is viable and was not born prematurely? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where one is certain of when the animal was conceived and that its months of gestation have been completed, so that it may be presumed to be viable.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָחֳדָשִׁים, וּלְעִיבּוּרִין, וְלִתְרוּמַת שְׁקָלִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לִשְׂכִירוּת בָּתִּים.

§ The Sages taught a baraita that expands upon what was taught in the mishna: On the first of Nisan is the New Year for counting the months of the year, and for leap years, and for collection of the shekels that had been collected in Adar and used to purchase animals for communal offerings and other needs of the Temple; and some say that it is also the New Year for the renting of houses.

לָחֳדָשִׁים מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים רִאשׁוֹן הוּא לָכֶם לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה. דַּבְּרוּ אֶל כׇּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית אָבוֹת שֶׂה לַבָּיִת. וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת עַד אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה וְשָׁחֲטוּ אוֹתוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. וּכְתִיב: ״שָׁמוֹר אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב״, אֵיזֶהוּ חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אָבִיב, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר — זֶה נִיסָן, וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ רִאשׁוֹן.

From where do we derive that the first of Nisan is the New Year for months? As it is written: “This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: On the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for a household…And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month: And the whole assembly of the congregation shall slaughter it toward evening” (Exodus 12:2–6). And elsewhere it is written: “Observe the month of ripening and keep Passover to the Lord your God; for in the month of ripening the Lord your God brought you forth out of Egypt by night” (Deuteronomy 16:1). Which is the month in which there is a ripening of grain? You must say that this is Nisan, and it is called the first month of the year.

וְאֵימָא אִיָּיר? בָּעֵינָא אָבִיב, וְלֵיכָּא. וְאֵימָא אֲדָר? בָּעֵינָא רוֹב אָבִיב, וְלֵיכָּא. מִידֵּי ״רוֹב אָבִיב״ כְּתִיב?

The Gemara asks: But one could say that it is the month of Iyyar. The Gemara answers: A month of ripening is required, and in Iyyar there is no ripening, as the grain has already ripened. The Gemara asks further: But one could say that it is the month of Adar, the month in which some of the grain begins to ripen. The Gemara answers: The month in which most of the ripening takes place is required, and this is not the case in Adar, as most of the grain ripens during the next month, the month of Nisan. The Gemara asks: But is most of the ripening written in the verse? The verse merely speaks of the month of ripening, and since there is some ripening in Adar, it is possible that this is the first month.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, מֵהָכָא: ״אַךְ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאׇסְפְּכֶם אֶת תְּבוּאַת הָאָרֶץ״, אֵיזֶהוּ חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֲסִיפָה, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר — זֶה תִּשְׁרִי, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״שְׁבִיעִי״.

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: It is derived that Nisan is the first of the months from here. The verse states: “Also on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land” (Leviticus 23:39). Which is the month in which there is a gathering of the grain of the field before the rains begin? You must say that this is Tishrei, and it is called the seventh month. Therefore, Nisan is the first month of the year.

וְאֵימָא מְרַחְשְׁוָן, וּמַאי ״שְׁבִיעִי״ — שְׁבִיעִי לְאִיָּיר? בָּעֵינָא אָסִיף, וְלֵיכָּא. וְאֵימָא אֱלוּל, וּמַאי ״שְׁבִיעִי״ — שְׁבִיעִי לַאֲדָר? בָּעֵינָא רוֹב אָסִיף, וְלֵיכָּא. מִידֵּי ״רוֹב אָסִיף״ כְּתִיב?

The Gemara asks: But one could say that verse is referring to the month of Marḥeshvan, and what is meant by seventh? It is the seventh month from the month of Iyyar. The Gemara rejects this possibility: A month of gathering is required, and in Marḥeshvan there is no gathering, as the crops have already been gathered in, and the fields have already begun to be plowed to prepare them for the next year’s planting. The Gemara asks further: But one could say that it is the month of Elul, the month in which the gathering of the grain from the fields begins, and what is meant by seventh? It is the seventh month from the month of Adar. The Gemara answers: The month in which most of the gathering takes place is required, and this is not the case in Elul, as most of the gathering is done in Tishrei. The Gemara asks: But is most of the gathering written in the verse?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא, דָּבָר זֶה מִתּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, מִדִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה לָמַדְנוּ: ״בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לְעַשְׁתֵּי עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הוּא חֹדֶשׁ שְׁבָט״. רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וַתִּלָּקַח אֶסְתֵּר אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ אֶל בֵּית מַלְכוּתוֹ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂירִי הוּא חֹדֶשׁ טֵבֵת״.

Rather, Ravina said: This matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses, our teacher; rather, we learned it from the texts of the tradition, i.e., the Prophets and Writings: “On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, which is the month of Shevat” (Zechariah 1:7). If Shevat is the eleventh month, Nisan must be the first month. Rabba bar Ulla said: It is derived from here, as it is stated: “So Esther was taken to the king Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month of Tevet” (Esther 2:16).

רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁיעִי בְּכִסְלֵו״. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וַיִּקָּרְאוּ סוֹפְרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בָּעֵת הַהִיא בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי הוּא חֹדֶשׁ סִיוָן״. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״הִפִּיל פּוּר הוּא הַגּוֹרָל לִפְנֵי הָמָן מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וּמֵחֹדֶשׁ לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר הוּא חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּא חֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן״.

Rav Kahana said: It is derived from here: “On the fourth day of the ninth month, in Kislev” (Zechariah 7:1). Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: It is derived from here, as it is stated: “And the scribes of the king were called at that time in the third month, that is the month of Sivan” (Esther 8:9). Rav Ashi said: It is derived from here: “He cast pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar” (Esther 3:7). And if you wish, say that it is derived from here: “In the first month, that is, the month of Nisan” (Esther 3:7).

וְכוּלְּהוּ, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמְרִי מֵהַאי? דִּלְמָא מַאי ״רִאשׁוֹן״ — רִאשׁוֹן לְמִילְּתֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: And all of the others, what is the reason that they did not say that it is derived from here, the last verse mentioned, which is explicitly referring to Nisan as the first month? The Gemara answers: It is because one could perhaps have said: What is meant here by first? It means the first in relation to its matter, i.e., the months of the decree, and so it cannot be proven from here that Nisan is the first of the months of the year.

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן — בְּשָׁנִים קָמַיְירֵי, בָּחֳדָשִׁים לָא קָמַיְירֵי.

The Gemara asks: And why didn’t the tanna of our mishna list the first of Nisan as the New Year for months, as did the tanna of the baraita? The Gemara answers: He is dealing with matters connected to years, but he is not dealing with matters connected to months.

וּלְעִיבּוּרִין לְעִיבּוּרִין מִנִּיסָן מָנִינַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין מְעַבְּרִין הַשָּׁנָה לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וְאִם עִיבְּרוּהָ — אֵינָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת. אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי הַדְּחָק — מְעַבְּרִין אוֹתָהּ אַחַר רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה מִיָּד. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵּן, אֵין מְעַבְּרִין אֶלָּא אֲדָר.

§ It was taught in the baraita: And on the first of Nisan is the New Year for leap years. The Gemara asks: Do we really count leap years from Nisan? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The court may not declare a leap year before Rosh HaShana, and if they did declare a leap year before Rosh HaShana, the declaration is not valid and it is not considered a leap year. But due to pressing circumstances, e.g., religious persecution, it may be declared immediately after Rosh HaShana. At that time, the Sages may declare that the coming year will be a leap year in accordance with their calculations. Even so, the additional month added to the leap year can be only a second Adar. In what sense, then, is Nisan the New Year for leap years?

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי עִיבּוּרִין — הַפְסָקַת עִיבּוּרִין. דִּתְנַן: הֵן הֵעִידוּ שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִין הַשָּׁנָה כׇּל אֲדָר. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים — עַד הַפּוּרִים.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is meant here by leap years? It means the end of the leap year. Once the month of Nisan has arrived, the previous year can no longer be declared a leap year, as we learned in a mishna: They, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papeyyas, testified that the court may declare a leap year all through the month of Adar, as there were Sages who said: A year may be declared a leap year only until Purim, and if the decision to declare a leap year was not made before Purim, the year can no longer be declared a leap year.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד הַפּוּרִים? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: שׁוֹאֲלִין בְּהִלְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח קוֹדֶם לַפֶּסַח שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אָתֵי לְזַלְזוֹלֵי בְּחָמֵץ.

The Gemara explains the dispute: What is the rationale of the one who said that a leap year can be declared only until Purim? It is since the Master said: One asks about the halakhot of Passover thirty days before Passover. Immediately following Purim, on the fifteenth of Adar, people already began to immerse themselves in the halakhot of Passover, which occurs on the fifteenth of Nisan. Were the court to declare a leap year after Purim, the festival of Passover would then be delayed for another month. In that case, there is concern that people will come to demean the prohibition against leavened bread and not observe Passover on its new date in the proper manner.

וְאִידַּךְ — מִידָּע יְדִיעַ דְּשַׁתָּא מְעַבַּרְתָּא בְּחוּשְׁבָּנָא תַּלְיָא מִלְּתָא, וְסָבְרִי: חוּשְׁבָּנָא הוּא דְּלָא סְלֵיק לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן עַד הָאִידָּנָא.

And the other Sages, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papeyyas, who are not concerned about this, what do they say? They say that people know that a leap year is dependent on the calculation, and they will assume that the Sages did not complete the calculation until now, after Purim. Since this is a matter of common knowledge, there is no concern that declaring a leap year at that late time will lead to a disregard of the halakhot of Passover.

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן? בְּהַתְחָלָה קָמַיְירֵי, בְּהַפְסָקָה לָא קָמַיְירֵי.

The Gemara asks: And why didn’t the tanna of our mishna include the first of Nisan as the New Year for leap years? The Gemara answers: He is dealing with years that begin on the first of Nisan, but he is not dealing with years that end on that date. With regard to leap years, the first of Nisan is the end not a beginning.

וְלִתְרוּמַת שְׁקָלִים. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״זֹאת עוֹלַת חֹדֶשׁ בְּחׇדְשׁוֹ לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה״ — אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: חַדֵּשׁ וְהָבֵא קׇרְבָּן מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. וְגָמְרִי ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מִנִּיסָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״רִאשׁוֹן הוּא לָכֶם לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה״.

§ It was taught in the baraita: And the first of Nisan is the New Year for collection of the shekels that had been collected in Adar and were used to purchase animals for communal offerings and other needs of the Temple. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Yoshiya said that the verse states: “This is the burnt-offering of each month in its month throughout the months [leḥodshei] of the year” (Numbers 28:14). The seemingly superfluous term: “Throughout the months [leḥodshei] of the year,” should be understood as follows: The Torah is saying here: Renew [ḥaddesh] the year and bring an offering from the new collection of the shekels. And it is derived by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of the word “year” and another instance of the word “year” that the year begins for this purpose from Nisan, as it is written with regard to Nisan: “It shall be the first month of the year to you” (Exodus 12:2).

וְלִגְמוֹר ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מִתִּשְׁרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵרֵאשִׁית הַשָּׁנָה״! דָּנִין שָׁנָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵין דָּנִין שָׁנָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים.

The Gemara asks: But let us learn by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of the word “year” and a different instance of the word “year” that the year begins for this purpose from Tishrei, as it is written with regard to Tishrei: “From the beginning of the year” (Deuteronomy 11:12). The Gemara answers: One derives the meaning of the word “year” together with which “months” are mentioned, as the verse states: “Throughout the months of the year,” from another instance of the word “year” together with which months are mentioned, as the verse states: “It shall be the first month of the year to you.” And one does not derive the meaning of the word “year” together with which months are mentioned from an instance of the word “year” together with which “months” are not mentioned, as the verse states: “From the beginning of the year.”

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר הַבָּאִין בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן — מִצְוָה לְהָבִיא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ. וְאִם הֵבִיא מִן הַיָּשָׁן — יָצָא, אֶלָּא שֶׁחִיסֵּר מִצְוָה.

§ Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to communal offerings that are brought on the first of Nisan, there is a mitzva to bring them from the new contribution of shekels collected for that year. However, if one brought them from the old contribution, i.e., from last year’s shekels, he has fulfilled the obligation with regard to the offerings, but he lacks the mitzva of bringing them from the new shekels.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר הַבָּאִין בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן — מִצְוָה לְהָבִיא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ, וְאִם הֵבִיא מִן הַיָּשָׁן — יָצָא, אֶלָּא שֶׁחִיסֵּר מִצְוָה. וְיָחִיד שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב מִשֶּׁלּוֹ — כְּשֵׁרִין, בִּלְבַד שֶׁיִּמְסְרֵם לַצִּבּוּר.

The Gemara comments: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: With regard to communal offerings that are brought on the first of Nisan, there is a mitzva to bring them from the new contribution of shekels. However, if one brought them from the old contribution, he has fulfilled the obligation with regard to the sacrifices, but he lacks the mitzva of bringing them from the new shekels. If a private individual volunteered to bring the communal offerings from his own property, they are fit for the altar, provided that he transfers them over to the community.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that one may donate of his own property to the community, provided that he transfers it to the community in the proper manner. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we should be concerned that perhaps

לֹא יִמְסְרֵם לַצִּבּוּר יָפֶה יָפֶה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

he will not transfer them over to the public without reservation, and in his heart he will hold on to them as his own, therefore the baraita teaches us that this is not a matter of concern.

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן? כֵּיוָן דְּקָתָנֵי: אִם הֵבִיא יָצָא — לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: And why didn’t the tanna of our mishna count the first of Nisan as the New Year for shekels? The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna lists only definite New Years. Since it is taught: If one brought them from the old contribution, he has fulfilled his obligation, he could not state this New Year as a definite rule, and so he did not teach it.

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לִשְׂכִירוּת בָּתִּים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ לְשָׁנָה — מוֹנֶה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. וְאִם אָמַר ״לְשָׁנָה זוֹ״, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא עָמַד אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם אֶחָד בְּנִיסָן — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה.

§ It was taught in the baraita: And some say that the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the renting of houses. The Sages taught the following baraita: If one rents out a house to another person for a year, he counts twelve months from day to day. But if he said that he was renting it for this year, then even if the agreement was made only on the first of Adar, once the first of Nisan arrived one month later, it is counted as a year, and the rental contract comes to end.

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה — שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּלָא טָרַח אִינִישׁ לְמֵיגַר בֵּיתָא לִבְצִיר מִתְּלָתִין יוֹמִין.

The Gemara comments: Even according to the one who said that one day in a year is considered a year, it is different here, with regard to rental halakhot, as a person does not take the trouble to rent a house for less than thirty days. Therefore, if one rented a house after the first of Adar, the remaining days of Adar are not considered a full year.

וְאֵימָא תִּשְׁרִי? סְתָם כִּי אָגַר אִינִישׁ בֵּיתָא — לְכוּלְּהוּ יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אָגַר.

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the first of Tishrei is the New Year for the renting of houses, and so if one rents a house for a year in the summer the year would come to an end in Tishrei? The Gemara answers: A person who rents a house without specification intends to rent it for all of the rainy season, until Nisan, when the rainy season comes to a close.

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא דְּבָרַיְיתָא, וְתַנָּא דִּידַן? בְּנִיסָן נָמֵי מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי קִיטְרֵי.

The Gemara asks: And why didn’t the first tanna of the baraita and the tanna of our mishna include the first of Nisan as the New Year for the renting of houses? They hold that even in Nisan it is common that the sky becomes covered with clouds and rain falls. Therefore, one who rents a house does not have in mind to rent it only until the first of Nisan, as presumably he does not want to find himself in a situation where he is homeless when it is still raining.

בְּאֶחָד בֶּאֱלוּל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. מַנִּי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בְּאֶחָד בֶּאֱלוּל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

§ The mishna states: On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. The Gemara comments: Who is the author of the opinion cited in this mishna? It is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a mishna that Rabbi Meir says: On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes.

וְלָרְגָלִים. מַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Festivals, i.e., that the first of Nisan is the New Year for Festivals, who is the author of the opinion cited in the mishna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only if the three Festivals have passed in their proper order, with Passover first. Say the last clause of the mishna, which states that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal tithes is on the first of Tishrei. Can it be that the first clause and the last clause follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while the middle clause relating to animal tithes follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְּתַנָּאֵי. בִּרְגָלִים סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּבְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he takes the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna’im. With regard to the Festivals, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while with regard to animal tithes he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אִי הָכִי, אַרְבָּעָה? חֲמִשָּׁה הָווּ! אָמַר רָבָא: אַרְבָּעָה לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל; לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַרְבָּעָה — דַּל רְגָלִים, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַרְבָּעָה — דַּל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, how are there four New Years? If the tanna of the mishna holds that the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes, there are five New Years: The first of Nisan, the fifteenth of Nisan, the first of Elul, the first of Tishrei, and the fifteenth of Shevat. Rava said: There are only four New Years according to each opinion: There are four according to Rabbi Meir, who removes the New Year for Festivals, as according to him there is no fixed time from which to begin counting the Festivals. According to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion as well there are four New Years, for he removes the New Year for animal tithes, as according to him it is on the first of Tishrei, which is already listed.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אַרְבָּעָה חֳדָשִׁים וּבָהֶן כַּמָּה רָאשֵׁי שָׁנִים.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said an alternative answer: The mishna is to be understood as follows: There are four months in which there are several New Years, since in Nisan, according to Rabbi Meir, there are two New Years: For kings on the first and for Festivals on the fifteenth.

מֵיתִיבִי: שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן — רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָעוֹמֶר. שִׁשָּׁה בְּסִיוָן — רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם. לְרָבָא לִיתְנֵי שִׁשָּׁה, לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לִיתְנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה?

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: The sixteenth of Nisan is the New Year for the omer offering, as from this date onward it is permitted to eat from the new crop of grain. The sixth of Sivan is the New Year for the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat brought on Shavuot, as from this day onward it is permitted to sacrifice meal-offerings in the Temple from the new grain. If so, according to Rava, let the mishna teach that there are six New Years, including the sixteenth of Nisan and the sixth of Sivan, and according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak let it teach that there are five New Years, since Sivan is a month in which there is a New Year.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב — מִידֵּי דְּחָיֵיל מֵאוּרְתָּא. מִידֵּי דְּלָא חָיֵיל מֵאוּרְתָּא — לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

Rav Pappa said: When the tanna of the mishna counts New Years, he counts only those that begin in the evening; those that do not begin in the evening he does not count. Since the New Years associated with the omer and the two loaves do not begin in the evening but only from the time that they are sacrificed, he does not include them.

וַהֲרֵי רְגָלִים, דְּלָא חָיְילִי מֵאוּרְתָּא, וְקָחָשֵׁיב! כֵּיוָן שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מֵעִיקָּרָא, מִיחַיַּיב וְקָאֵי.

The Gemara asks: But there is the New Year for Festivals, which does not begin in the evening, as the prohibition against delaying is not transgressed in the evening, when the Festival begins, but only in the morning, after the daily offering has been brought and one is able to bring the vowed animal to the altar, and nevertheless the tanna counts it. The Gemara answers: Since he had to bring his vow by the Festival, he stands liable from the beginning of the Festival for transgressing the prohibition against delaying.

וַהֲרֵי יוֹבְלוֹת, דְּלָא חָיְילִי מֵאוּרְתָּא, וְקָחָשֵׁיב! רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה חָיֵיל יוֹבֵל.

The Gemara asks further: But there is the New Year for the Jubilee, which does not begin in the evening but from the time of the shofar blast on Yom Kippur during the day, and nevertheless the tanna counts it. The Gemara answers: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who said that the Jubilee Year begins on Rosh HaShana, and the blowing of the shofar merely completes the release of the slaves. Therefore, the New Year for the Jubilee is included.

רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב — מִידֵּי דְּלָא תְּלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה, מִידֵּי דִּתְלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה — לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said a different explanation for why the New Year for the omer offering and the New Year for the two loaves are not mentioned in the mishna: When the tanna of the mishna counts New Years, he counts only those that do not depend upon an action; those that depend upon an action, e.g., the offering of the omer or the two loaves, he does not count.

וַהֲרֵי רְגָלִים, מִידֵּי דִּתְלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה, וְקָא חָשֵׁיב! ״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״ מִמֵּילָא חָיֵיל.

The Gemara asks: But there is the New Year for the Festivals, which depends upon an action, i.e., the sacrifice of the daily offering, since no offering may be brought before the daily offering, and nevertheless the tanna counts it. The Gemara answers: This is not so, as the transgression of the prohibition: You shall not delay, does not depend upon anything else; rather, it begins on its own as soon as the Festival begins.

וַהֲרֵי יוֹבְלוֹת! רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא.

The Gemara asks further: But the New Year for the Jubilee depends upon a certain action, i.e., sounding the shofar, and nevertheless the tanna counts it. The Gemara answers: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who said that the Jubilee Year begins on Rosh HaShana, even without the shofar blast.

וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אַרְבַּע רָאשֵׁי הַשָּׁנִים הֵם שֶׁהֵן בְּאַרְבַּע רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים.

The Gemara presents an alternative answer as to why the tanna did not include all the other New Years. Rav Ashi said: The tanna said that there are four New Years that fall on four New Moons. However, there are also other New Years that do not fall on New Moons.

בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט — כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: שְׁלֹשָׁה לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט — מַחְלוֹקֶת בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל.

The Gemara raises a question: Does Rav Ashi count the first of Shevat as one of the New Years; but the first of Shevat is a New Year only according to Beit Shammai, and by the time of Rav Ashi, the halakha was known to be in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara answers that this is what Rav Ashi is saying: There are three New Years that all agree occur on the first of the month, and the first of Shevat is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָבְשׁוּ כָרִים הַצֹּאן וַעֲמָקִים יַעַטְפוּ בָר יִתְרוֹעֲעוּ אַף יָשִׁירוּ״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: אֵימָתַי לָבְשׁוּ כָרִים הַצֹּאן — בִּזְמַן שֶׁעֲמָקִים יַעַטְפוּ בָר. וְאֵימָתַי עֲמָקִים יַעַטְפוּ בָר — בַּאֲדָר, מִתְעַבְּרוֹת בַּאֲדָר וְיוֹלְדוֹת בְּאָב, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁלָּהֶן אֱלוּל.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal tithes is on the first of Tishrei. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar, expounded the same verse in different ways. As it is stated in the verse: “The flocks are clothed in the meadows, and the valleys are wrapped in grain; they shout for joy, they also sing” (Psalms 65:14). Rabbi Meir holds: When are the flocks clothed in the meadows, i.e., when do the rams impregnate the ewes and thereby clothe them? It is at the time when the valleys are wrapped in grain, i.e., when they are covered in grain. And when are the valleys wrapped in grain? It is in Adar. Therefore, the sheep conceive in Adar and give birth five months later in Av, and so it is fitting that their New Year is on the first of Elul, as most of the year’s lambs have been born by then.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אֵימָתַי ״לָבְשׁוּ כָרִים הַצֹּאן״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁ״יִּתְרוֹעֲעוּ אַף יָשִׁירוּ״, אֵימָתַי שִׁבֳּלִים אוֹמְרוֹת שִׁירָה — בְּנִיסָן, מִתְעַבְּרוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְיוֹלְדוֹת בֶּאֱלוּל, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁלָּהֶן תִּשְׁרֵי.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: When are the flocks clothed in the meadows? At the time that the stalks of grain “shout for joy, and also sing.” When do the stalks break out in song, i.e., when are they full, so that they rustle in the wind and create the whispering sounds of song? It is in Nisan. Therefore, the sheep conceive in Nisan and give birth in Elul, and so it is fitting that their New Year is on the first of Tishrei.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״יִתְרוֹעֲעוּ אַף יָשִׁירוּ״! הָהוּא בְּאַפְלָתָא, דְּהָוְיָין בְּנִיסָן. וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וַעֲמָקִים יַעַטְפוּ בָר״! הָהוּא בְּחָרַפְיָיתָא, דְּאָתְיָין מֵאֲדָר.

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Meir, as well, isn’t it written: “They shout for joy, they also sing”? The Gemara answers: That is referring to late sheep, which were conceived after the usual time, in Nisan. The Gemara asks: According to the other opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon as well, isn’t it written: “And the valleys wrapped in grain,” which is in Adar? The Gemara answers: That is referring to early sheep, which were conceived in Adar.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״לָבְשׁוּ כָרִים הַצֹּאן״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁ״עֲמָקִים יַעַטְפוּ בָר״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי ״יִתְרוֹעֲעוּ אַף יָשִׁירוּ״. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אִיפְּכָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: ״לָבְשׁוּ כָרִים הַצֹּאן״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁ״יִּתְרוֹעֲעוּ אַף יָשִׁירוּ״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דַּ״עֲמָקִים יַעַטְפוּ בָר״.

The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the verse can be understood as it is written: “The flocks are clothed in the meadows” at the time when “the valleys are wrapped in grain.” But there are also some that do not conceive until as late as when “they shout for joy, they also sing.” But according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, it should have been written in the reverse order: “The flocks are clothed in the meadows” at the time when “they shout for joy, they also sing,” but there are also some that conceive earlier, when “the valleys are wrapped in grain.” If so, according to them, the words in the verse were not written in their proper order.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״לָבְשׁוּ כָרִים הַצֹּאן״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁ״עֲמָקִים יַעַטְפוּ בָר״ בַּאֲדָר, וְהָכָא בְּהַאי קְרָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: ״עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר״ — בִּשְׁנֵי מַעַשְׂרוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר: אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד מַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן.

Rather, Rava said that the dispute must be explained as follows: Everyone is of the opinion that “the flocks are clothed in the meadows,” i.e., the sheep conceive, primarily at the time when “the valleys are wrapped in grain,” in the month of Adar. But here they disagree about the meaning of the following verse: “You shall tithe a tithe from all the increase of your seed that the field brings forth year by year. And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herds, and of your flocks; that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always” (Deuteronomy 14:22–23). The verse speaks here about two tithes, one being the animal tithe and the other the grain tithe.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מַקִּישׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן — סָמוּךְ לִגְמָרוֹ עִישּׂוּרוֹ, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה — סָמוּךְ לִגְמָרוֹ עִישּׂוּרוֹ. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבְרִי: מַקִּישׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁלּוֹ תִּשְׁרִי — אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁלּוֹ תִּשְׁרִי.

They disagree about the following: Rabbi Meir holds that the verse juxtaposes the animal tithe to the grain tithe. Just as the grain tithe is set aside close to the grain’s completion, after it dries out in the field, so too, the animal tithe is set aside close to its completion, after the animals are born. Just as the grain is completed in Elul and is set aside the following month, which is Tishrei, so too, the animals are born in Av and therefore must be set aside in the following month, which is Elul. On the other hand, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold: The verse juxtaposes the animal tithe to the grain tithe. Just as in the case of the grain tithe, its New Year is in Tishrei, so too, in the case of the animal tithe, its New Year is in Tishrei.

בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַשָּׁנִים. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לִשְׁטָרוֹת. דִּתְנַן: שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין — פְּסוּלִין, וְהַמְאוּחָרִין — כְּשֵׁירִין.

§ It is taught in the mishna: On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years. The Gemara asks: With regard to which halakha is this stated? Rav Pappa said: It is stated for determining the validity of documents, as we learned in a mishna: Antedated promissory notes, which bear a date that is earlier than the date when the loan actually took place, are invalid. But postdated promissory notes, which bear a date that is later than the date when the loan actually took place, are valid. Therefore, it is essential to know the date on which the new year begins in order to determine whether or not a particular promissory note is valid.

וְהָתְנַן: בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים, וְאָמְרִינַן: לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא — וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא לִשְׁטָרוֹת.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we already learn in the mishna: On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; and we say about this: For what halakha is this stated? And Rav Ḥisda said: It is for determining the validity of documents. Therefore, the new year for documents begins in Nisan and not in Tishrei.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּאן לְמַלְכֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, where the document is dated according to the reign of the Jewish kings, the year begins in Nisan; and there, where the document is dated to the reign of the gentile kings of the nations of the world, the year begins in Tishrei.

אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל לְמַלְכֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מִתִּשְׁרִי מָנִינַן — רַב חִסְדָּא מַתְנִיתִין אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?!

The Gemara asks: But that which Rav Ḥisda said in explanation of the mishna, that they taught that the New Year for kings is in Nisan only with regard to the Jewish kings, but as for the gentile kings of the nations of the world we count from Tishrei, did Rav Ḥisda come to teach us what was already taught in the mishna itself?

לָא, רַב חִסְדָּא קְרָאֵי אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן.

The Gemara answers: No, Rav Ḥisda came to teach us the meaning of certain biblical verses, i.e., that they should not be understood as was suggested at the beginning of this chapter but as teaching that the New Year for gentile kings is in Tishrei.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב חִסְדָּא כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ. דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: לַתְּקוּפָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר בְּתִשְׁרִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם.

And if you wish, say that Rav Ḥisda teaches the mishna as did Rabbi Zeira, and he maintains that when it says that the first of Tishrei is the New Year for years, it is not referring to documents, as Rabbi Zeira said: The first of Tishrei is the New Year for years with regard to calculating the cycles of the sun and the moon. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: The world was created in the month of Tishrei, and all the calculations with regard to the sun and the moon are based on when they were created.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: לַדִּין, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵרֵאשִׁית הַשָּׁנָה וְעַד אַחֲרִית שָׁנָה״, מֵרֵאשִׁית הַשָּׁנָה נִידּוֹן מָה יְהֵא בְּסוֹפָהּ.

§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: When the mishna says that the first of Tishrei is the New Year for years, it is with regard to judgment, as on that day God judges the world for the whole year, as it is written: “A land that the Lord your God cares for; the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year” (Deuteronomy 11:12); from the beginning of the year judgment is passed as to what will happen at the end of the year.

מִמַּאי דְּתִשְׁרִי הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּקְעוּ בַחֹדֶשׁ שׁוֹפָר בַּכֵּסֶה לְיוֹם חַגֵּנוּ״, אֵיזֶהוּ חַג

The Gemara raises a question: From where is it known that the day of judgment is in Tishrei? As it is written: “Blow a shofar at the New Moon, at the covered time for our Festival day” (Psalms 81:4). Which is the Festival day

שֶׁהַחֹדֶשׁ מִתְכַּסֶּה בּוֹ — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מִשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב״.

on which the moon is covered, i.e., hidden? You must say that this is Rosh HaShana, which is the only Festival that occurs at the beginning of a month, when the moon cannot be seen. And it is written in the next verse: “For this is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob” (Psalms 81:5), implying that this is the day of judgment.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מִשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה נִכְנָסִין לַדִּין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קִידְּשׁוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַטָּה אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ.

With regard to this same verse, the Sages taught in a baraita: “For this is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob”; this teaches that the heavenly court does not assemble for judgment until the earthly court has sanctified the month, once the Sanhedrin has declared that day as Rosh HaShana.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל נִכְנָסִין תְּחִילָּה לַדִּין.

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “For this is a statute for Israel.” From here I have derived only that this is the day of judgment for the Jewish people; from where do I derive that it is also the day of judgment for the gentile nations of the world? Therefore, the verse states: “A judgment for the God of Jacob,” Who rules over the entire world. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “A statute for Israel”? This teaches that the Jewish people enter for judgment first.

כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֶלֶךְ וְצִיבּוּר — מֶלֶךְ נִכְנָס תְּחִילָּה לַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִשְׁפַּט עַבְדּוֹ וּמִשְׁפַּט עַמּוֹ״.

The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: When a king and a community are brought before God for judgment, the king is brought in for judgment first, as it is stated: “And let these my words, with which I have made supplication before the Lord, be near to the Lord our God day and night, that He make the judgment of His servant and the judgment of His people Israel at all times” (I Kings 8:59). This verse is from King Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple, and he is referring to himself a servant of God.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמֵיקַם מַלְכָּא אַבָּרַאי, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיפּוֹשׁ חֲרוֹן אַף.

What is the reason that the king is brought in first? If you wish, say that it is not proper conduct for the king to stand outside and wait for the trial of his subjects to come to an end. And if you wish, say instead that the king is brought in first so that he may be judged before God’s anger intensifies due to the sins of the community, and he may thereby be saved from overly harsh judgment.

וְלַשְּׁמִיטִּין. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִית שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ״, וְגָמַר ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מִתִּשְׁרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵרֵאשִׁית הַשָּׁנָה״.

§ The mishna teaches: The first of Tishrei is also the New Year for calculating Sabbatical Years. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “But in the seventh year shall be a Shabbat of solemn rest for the land” (Leviticus 25:4), and we learn by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of the word “year” and another instance of the word “year” that the year begins for this purpose from Tishrei, as it is written: “From the beginning of the year” (Deuteronomy 11:12). The latter verse is referring to the year that begins at the onset of the rainy season, i.e., Tishrei.

וְלִגְמוֹר ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מִנִּיסָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״רִאשׁוֹן הוּא לָכֶם לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה״! דָּנִין שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵין דָּנִין שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us learn by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of the word “year” and another instance of the word “year” and conclude that for this purpose the year begins from Nisan, as it is written: “It shall be the first month of the year to you” (Exodus 12:2), and there the reference is to Nisan. The Gemara answers: The Sages derive the meaning of the word “year” that appears in the verse about the Sabbatical Year, where months are not mentioned with it, from the word “year” that appears in the verse in Deuteronomy above, where months are also not mentioned with it. And they do not derive the meaning of the word “year” where months are not mentioned with it from the word “year” that appears in the verse where months are mentioned with it, i.e., “It shall be the first month of the year for you.”

וְלַיּוֹבְלוֹת. יוֹבְלוֹת בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי הוּא? יוֹבְלוֹת בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּתִשְׁרִי הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תַּעֲבִירוּ שׁוֹפָר״!

§ The mishna teaches: The first of Tishrei is also the New Year for Jubilee Years. The Gemara asks: Is the New Year for Jubilee Years on the first of Tishrei? Isn’t the New Year for Jubilee Years on the tenth of Tishrei, Yom Kippur? As it is written: “Then shall you cause the shofar to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, on Yom Kippur shall you sound the shofar throughout all your land. And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a Jubilee for you” (Leviticus 25:9–10).

הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם אֵת שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים״ — יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְאֵילָךְ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם אֵת שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְקַדֶּשֶׁת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מִתְּחִילָּתָהּ.

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it is taught in a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And you shall hallow the fiftieth year”? Since it is stated that the shofar is blown “on Yom Kippur,” one might have thought that the year is sanctified only from Yom Kippur and onward. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall hallow the fiftieth year,” which teaches that the year is sanctified from its beginning onward, from the first of Tishrei, when the year begins.

מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא: מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה עַד יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לֹא הָיוּ עֲבָדִים נִפְטָרִין לְבָתֵּיהֶן, וְלֹא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִין לַאֲדוֹנֵיהֶם — אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין וּשְׂמֵחִין, וְעַטְרוֹתֵיהֶן בְּרָאשֵׁיהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, תָּקְעוּ בֵּית דִּין בְּשׁוֹפָר, נִפְטְרוּ עֲבָדִים לְבָתֵּיהֶן וְשָׂדוֹת חוֹזְרוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן.

From here, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, said: From Rosh HaShana until Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year, Hebrew slaves were not released to their homes because the shofar had not yet been sounded. And they were also not enslaved to their masters, as the Jubilee Year had already begun. Rather, they would eat, drink, and rejoice, and they would wear their crowns on their heads like free people. Once Yom Kippur arrived, the court would sound the shofar, slaves would be released to their houses, and fields that were sold would be returned to their original owners.

וְרַבָּנַן — שָׁנִים אַתָּה מְקַדֵּשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְקַדֵּשׁ חֳדָשִׁים.

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, how do they interpret the verse: “And you shall hallow the fiftieth year”? The Gemara answers: They derive from here that you sanctify years, but you do not sanctify months. According to this opinion, the court is commanded to sanctify the Jubilee Year with a proclamation: This year is sanctified; but it is not commanded to sanctify the months with a similar proclamation.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״יוֹבֵל הִיא״ — מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם אֵת שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים״, יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּתְקַדֶּשֶׁת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מִתְּחִילָּתָהּ, כָּךְ מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת וְהוֹלֶכֶת בְּסוֹפָהּ. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי מוֹסִיפִין מֵחוֹל עַל קֹדֶשׁ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יוֹבֵל הִיא שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים״ — שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים אַתָּה מְקַדֵּשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְקַדֵּשׁ שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וְאַחַת.

It is taught in another baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: “It shall be a Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:11)? Since it is stated: “And you shall hallow the fiftieth year,” one might have thought that just as the Jubilee Year is sanctified from its beginning onward, so too, it is sanctified at its end onward, i.e., it remains sanctified until Yom Kippur of the fifty-first year. And do not wonder why one might think this, as don’t we regularly add from the profane to the sacred, extending a sacred time period by adding to it both before and after from a profane time period? Therefore, the verse states: “It shall be a Jubilee Year, the fiftieth year,” to teach that you sanctify the fiftieth year, but you do not sanctify the fifty-first year, even partially.

וְרַבָּנַן? שְׁנַת חֲמִשִּׁים אַתָּה מוֹנֶה, וְאִי אַתָּה מוֹנֶה שְׁנַת חֲמִשִּׁים וְאַחַת — לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנַת חֲמִשִּׁים עוֹלָה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.

And the Rabbis, who do not require an additional verse to derive that the Jubilee Year does not extend until Yom Kippur of the fifty-first year, derive this halakha from the verse: You count the fiftieth year as the Jubilee Year alone, but you do not count the fiftieth year as the Jubilee Year and also as the first year of the next Sabbatical cycle. This halakha comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the fiftieth year is counted for here and for there, both as the Jubilee Year and also as the first year of the next Sabbatical cycle. Lest someone think that that is the case, therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so; rather, the fiftieth year is the Jubilee Year, and the following year is the first year of the next Sabbatical cycle.

וּדְמוֹסִיפִין מֵחוֹל עַל קֹדֶשׁ מְנָלַן?

§ Apropos of the discussion of extending the Jubilee year, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive the principle that one extends a sanctified time period by adding from the profane to the sacred at both ends?

דְּתַנְיָא: ״בֶּחָרִישׁ וּבַקָּצִיר תִּשְׁבּוֹת״, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חָרִישׁ וְקָצִיר שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְגוֹ׳״. אֶלָּא חָרִישׁ שֶׁל עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית הַנִּכְנָס לִשְׁבִיעִית, וְקָצִיר שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית הַיּוֹצֵא לְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית.

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “In plowing and in harvest you shall rest” (Exodus 34:21). Rabbi Akiva says: It is unnecessary to state this about plowing and harvesting during the Sabbatical Year, as it is already stated: “But in the seventh year shall be a Shabbat of solemn rest for the land, a Shabbat for the Lord; you shall neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard” (Leviticus 25:4). Rather, the verse: “In plowing and in harvest you shall rest,” is referring to plowing in the year preceding the Sabbatical Year going into the Sabbatical Year, i.e., plowing in the sixth year that will benefit the crops growing in the Sabbatical Year, and about harvesting of the Sabbatical Year going into the year that follows the Sabbatical Year, i.e., harvesting grain that grew in the Sabbatical Year in the eighth year. This teaches that there is a requirement to add extra time to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and not work the land both before and after.

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מָה חָרִישׁ רְשׁוּת — אַף קָצִיר רְשׁוּת, יָצָא קְצִיר הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yishmael says that the verse: “In plowing and in harvest you shall rest,” is not referring to the prohibition against farming the land before and after the Sabbatical Year as Rabbi Akiva explains. He explains that the reason that the verse mentions these two particular forms of labor is to teach that just as the type of plowing that is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year is an otherwise voluntary act, as plowing is never required by the Torah, so too, the harvesting that is prohibited during that year is only voluntary harvesting. This comes to exclude the harvesting of the omer from the prohibition, as it is a mitzva. The barley for the omer must be harvested on the sixteenth of Nisan. Consequently, it is permitted to harvest the omer even during the Sabbatical Year.

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מוֹסִיפִין מֵחוֹל עַל קֹדֶשׁ מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה״. יָכוֹל בְּתִשְׁעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּעֶרֶב״, אִי ״בָּעֶרֶב״ יָכוֹל מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּתִשְׁעָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַתְחִיל וּמִתְעַנֶּה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין מֵחוֹל עַל קֹדֶשׁ.

The Gemara asks: If so, from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive this principle that one extends a sacred time period by adding from the profane to the sacred both before and after? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states, in reference to Yom Kippur: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening” (Leviticus 23:32). One might have thought that one must begin to fast the entire day on the ninth of the month. Therefore, the verse states: “In the evening.” But if it is so that Yom Kippur begins in the evening, one might have thought that one need only begin to fast from when it is dark, after nightfall, when the tenth day of the month begins. Therefore, the verse states: “On the ninth.” How so; how is this to be accomplished? One begins to fast on the ninth of the month while it is still day. This teaches that one extends a sacred time period by adding at the beginning from the profane to the sacred.

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, בִּיצִיאָתוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד עֶרֶב״.

From here I have derived only that this addition is made at the beginning of Yom Kippur. But from where do I derive that a similar addition is made at the end of Yom Kippur? The verse states: “From evening to evening shall you rest on your Shabbat” (Leviticus 23:32), which teaches that just as Yom Kippur is extended at the beginning, so too, it is extended at the end.

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שַׁבָּתוֹת מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּשְׁבְּתוּ״. יָמִים טוֹבִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שַׁבַּתְּכֶם״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁבוּת — מוֹסִיפִין מֵחוֹל עַל קֹדֶשׁ.

From here I have derived only that an extension is added to Yom Kippur. From where is it derived that one must also extend Shabbat? The verse states: “You shall rest [tishbetu],” which is referring to Yom Kippur but alludes to Shabbat. From where do I know that the same applies to Festivals? The verse states: “Your Shabbat [shabbatkhem],” your day of rest. How so? Wherever there is a mitzva of resting, be it Shabbat or a Festival, one adds from the profane to the sacred, extending the sacred time at both ends.

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַאי ״וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנֵי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִדִּפְתִּי. דְּתָנֵי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִדִּפְתִּי: ״וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה״ וְכִי בְּתִשְׁעָה מִתְעַנִּין? וַהֲלֹא בַּעֲשִׂירִי מִתְעַנִּין! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה בִּתְשִׁיעִי, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, who learns that one adds from the profane to the sacred from the verse dealing with the Sabbatical Year, what does he do with this verse: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which was taught by Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught the following baraita: The verse states: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month.” Is the fasting on the ninth? But isn’t the fasting on Yom Kippur on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this verse comes to teach you: Whoever eats and drinks on the ninth, thereby preparing himself for the fast on the next day, the verse ascribes him credit

כְּאִילּוּ הִתְעַנָּה תְּשִׁיעִי וַעֲשִׂירִי.

as though he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יוֹבֵל הִיא״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְטוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא תָּקְעוּ. יָכוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁלְּחוּ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הִיא״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

§ The Gemara continues with the topic of the Jubilee Year. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a Jubilee for you” (Leviticus 25:10). The words “it shall be a Jubilee” come to teach that although they did not release property to its original owners, and although they did not sound the shofar, it is nevertheless a Jubilee Year, and the halakhot of the Jubilee year apply. One might have thought that although they did not send free the slaves it is also still a Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse states: “It shall be,” this being a term of limitation. This teaches that at least one of the essential halakhot of the year must be observed, and if not, it is not a Jubilee Year. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״יוֹבֵל הִיא״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְטוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁלְּחוּ. יָכוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא תָּקְעוּ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הִיא״.

Rabbi Yosei says: “It shall be a Jubilee for you”; although they did not release property to its original owners, and although they did not send free the slaves, it is nevertheless a Jubilee Year. One might have thought that although they did not sound the shofar, it is also still a Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse states: “It shall be.” Some act must be performed. In this case, the shofar must be sounded, otherwise it is not a Jubilee Year.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁמִּקְרָא אֶחָד מְרַבֶּה, וּמִקְרָא אֶחָד מְמַעֵיט, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: ״יוֹבֵל הִיא״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁלְּחוּ, וְאֵין יוֹבֵל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן תָּקְעוּ? לְפִי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא שִׁילּוּחַ עֲבָדִים, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא תְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר.

Rabbi Yosei explains his position: Since one verse includes situations where the Jubilee is in force, and another verse excludes such situations, for what reason do I say that it is a Jubilee Year although they did not send free the slaves, but it is a Jubilee Year only if they sounded the shofar? This is since it is possible that there would be no sending free of slaves, as perhaps no one has any slaves to release, but it is impossible that there would be no sounding of the shofar, as a shofar can always be found. Therefore, it must be that it is the sounding of the shofar that is the indispensable criterion for the Jubilee Year.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: זוֹ מְסוּרָה לְבֵית דִּין, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ מְסוּרָה לְבֵית דִּין.

Alternatively: This, sounding the shofar, is given over to the court, which is obligated to blow it. But that, setting the slaves free, is not given over to the court but to each individual slave owner. It stands to reason that the indispensable criterion is one that is in the hands of the court and not in the hands of individuals.

מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלֵיכָּא חַד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם דְּלָא מְשַׁלַּח — זוֹ מְסוּרָה לְבֵית דִּין, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ מְסוּרָה לְבֵית דִּין.

The Gemara asks: What is the need for Rabbi Yosei to add: Alternatively? Why is his first explanation insufficient? The Gemara answers: It is necessary, as, if you say that it is impossible that there should not be at least one slave owner at the end of the world, and therefore it is inconceivable that there will ever be a time when there are no slaves that are set free, you can nevertheless say that this, sounding the shofar, is given over to the court, but that, setting the slaves free, is not given over to the court.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — כִּדְקָאָמַר טַעְמֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּקְרָאתֶם דְּרוֹר בָּאָרֶץ״, וְקָסָבַר: מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו, וְלֹא לִפְנֵי פָנָיו.

The Gemara asks: Granted, this is clear according to Rabbi Yosei, as he has stated his reasoning. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, what is the reason that the indispensable criterion for the Jubilee Year is sending free the slaves? The Gemara explains: The verse states: “And you shall proclaim liberty [deror] throughout all the land to all its inhabitants,” and immediately afterward it says: “It shall be a Jubilee for you.” And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a verse may be expounded in reference to the immediately preceding clause, but not in reference to the clause before that. Therefore, the exclusion implied by the words “it shall be,” is referring to what is stated in the immediately preceding clause: “And you shall proclaim liberty throughout all the land,” i.e., the emancipation of slaves. It is not referring to what is stated in the clause before that: “On Yom Kippur shall you sound the shofar throughout all your land.”

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא — ״דְּרוֹר״ לְשׁוֹן חֵירוּת, מַאי מַשְׁמַע? דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין ״דְּרוֹר״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן חֵירוּת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מָה לְשׁוֹן דְּרוֹר — כִּמְדַיַּיר בֵּי דַיָּירָא, וּמוֹבִיל סְחוֹרָה בְּכׇל מְדִינָה.

The Gemara asks: It is clear that according to everyone the term “deror” is a word meaning liberty. From where may this be inferred? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The word deror is a term meaning only liberty. Rabbi Yehuda said: What is the meaning of the word deror? It is like a man who dwells [medayyer] in any dwelling [dayyara] and moves merchandise around the entire country, i.e., he can live and do business wherever he wants.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מְעַכְּבוֹת בּוֹ. קָסָבְרִי: מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו, וְלִפְנֵי פָנָיו, וּלְאַחֲרָיו.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, but the Rabbis say: All three of them are indispensable for the Jubilee Year: Releasing property, sounding the shofar, and liberating the slaves. They hold that a verse may be interpreted in reference to the immediately preceding clause, in reference to the clause before that, and it may also be interpreted in reference to the clause following it, as all of these halakhot are mentioned in this section, and the exclusion implied by the words “it shall be” applies to all of them.

וְהָכְתִיב: ״יוֹבֵל״! הַהוּא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְהָכְתִיב: ״בָּאָרֶץ״! הָהוּא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנּוֹהֵג דְּרוֹר בָּאָרֶץ — נוֹהֵג בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ — אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written “Jubilee Year,” which is a term of inclusion that should counter the exclusionary function of the words: “It shall be”? The Gemara answers: That term “Jubilee Year” comes to teach that the mitzva of the Jubilee applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it written: “Throughout the land,” implying that it applies only in Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: That term, “throughout the land,” comes to teach that when liberation applies in Eretz Yisrael, it applies outside of Eretz Yisrael as well, and when liberation does not apply in Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael either.

וְלִנְטִיעָה. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים עֲרֵלִים״, וּכְתִיב: ״וּבַשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִית״, וְיָלֵיף ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מִתִּשְׁרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵרֵאשִׁית הַשָּׁנָה״:

§ The mishna teaches: And the first of Tishrei is the New Year for planting. It determines the years of orla, the three-year period from when a tree has been planted during which time its fruit is forbidden. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “Three years shall it be prohibited [arelim] to you; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 19:23), and it is written in the following verse: “And in the fourth year all its fruit will be sacred for giving praise to the Lord” (Leviticus 19:24). And it is derived by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of the word “year” and another instance of the word “year” that for this purpose the year begins from Tishrei, as it is written with regard to Tishrei: “From the beginning of the year” (Deuteronomy 11:12).

וְלִיגְמַר ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מִנִּיסָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״רִאשׁוֹן הוּא לָכֶם לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה״?! דָּנִין שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵין דָּנִין שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים מִשָּׁנָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ חֳדָשִׁים.

The Gemara asks: But let us derive by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of the word “year” and another instance of the word “year” that for this purpose the year begins from Nisan, as it is written with regard to Nisan: “It shall be the first month of the year to you” (Exodus 12:2). The Gemara answers: The Sages derive the meaning of the word “year” as it appears in the verse about the orla, where months are not mentioned with it, from the word “year” as it appears in the verse in Deuteronomy above, where months are also not mentioned with it. And they do not derive the meaning of the word “year” where months are not mentioned with it from the word “year” as it appears in the verse where months are mentioned with it, i.e., “It shall be the first month of the year for you.”

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד הַנּוֹטֵעַ אֶחָד הַמַּבְרִיךְ, וְאֶחָד הַמַּרְכִּיב עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית, שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה, וּמוּתָּר לְקַיְּימָן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה — לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה, וְאָסוּר לְקַיְּימָן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one plants a tree, or layers a vine shoot into the ground so that it may take root, or grafts a branch onto a tree on the eve of the Sabbatical Year thirty days before Rosh HaShana, as soon as Rosh HaShana arrives, a year is counted for him. The thirty days count as a full year with regard to the prohibition of orla, and it is permitted to preserve the plant during the Sabbatical Year, as this is not considered new growth. However, if one performed these actions less than thirty days before Rosh HaShana, then when Rosh HaShana arrives, a year is not counted for him for orla, and it is prohibited to preserve the new growth during the Sabbatical Year.

וּפֵירוֹת נְטִיעָה זוֹ אֲסוּרִין עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט, אִם לְעׇרְלָה — עׇרְלָה, וְאִם לִרְבָעִי — רְבָעִי.

And if the planting, layering, or grafting took place more than thirty days before Rosh HaShana, the fruit of this planting is prohibited until the fifteenth of Shevat of the fourth year since the tree’s planting, even though the three years were already completed the previous Rosh HaShana. This principle applies both for orla during the year of orla, when it is prohibited to eat the fruit, and for fourth-year produce during the year of fourth-year produce, which must be eaten in Jerusalem or redeemed before it is eaten outside Jerusalem.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבַשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִית וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁית״.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that the prohibitions of orla and fourth-year produce extend past Tishrei until the fifteenth of Shevat? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some determined that it was stated in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The verse states: “Three years shall it be as prohibited to you; it shall not be eaten. And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be sacred for praise-giving to the Lord. And in the fifth year shall you eat of its fruit, that it may yield to you its increase; I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:23–25).

פְּעָמִים שֶׁבָּרְבִיעִית וַעֲדַיִין אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם עׇרְלָה, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁבַּחֲמִישִׁית וַעֲדַיִין אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם רְבָעִי.

The baraita explains: The repetition of the word “and,” indicated by the conjunctive vav that joins these verses, teaches that there are times that the tree is already in its fourth year and yet the fruit is forbidden as orla, from the verses “three years…and in the fourth year”; and there are times that the tree is already in its fifth year and yet the fruit is forbidden as fourth-year produce, from the verses “in the fourth year…and in the fifth year.”

לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — הָא אָמַר: יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: פַּר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם — בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t Rabbi Meir say that even one day in a year is considered a year? As it is taught in a baraita: The term bullock [par] mentioned in the Torah without specification is referring to a bullock that is twenty-four months and one day old, as although it is known by tradition that a bullock is three years old, once it is one day into its third year, it is already considered three years old; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עֵגֶל בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם — בֶּן שָׁנָה, ״בֶּן בָּקָר״ — בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּר״ — בֶּן שָׁלֹשׁ.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar says: The term bullock is referring to an animal that is twenty-four months and thirty days old. As Rabbi Meir would say: Wherever a calf [egel] is stated in the Torah without specification, the reference is to a calf that is one year old; a young ox [ben bakar] is referring to a cow that is two years old; and a bullock is referring to a cow that is three years old. Since the baraita dealing with planting requires that the tree be planted thirty days before Rosh HaShana, rather than one day, it would seem that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה — בְּסוֹף שָׁנָה, אֲבָל בִּתְחִלַּת שָׁנָה — לָא.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be explained as follows. When Rabbi Meir said that one day in a year is considered a full year, this is only when the day is at the end of the year; since the count of a new year is about to begin, the day is considered like a whole year. But if the day is at the beginning of the year, that one day is not considered like a whole year.

אָמַר רָבָא: וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? וּמָה נִדָּה, שֶׁאֵין תְּחִילַּת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ — סוֹף הַיּוֹם עוֹלֶה לָהּ בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ. שָׁנָה, שֶׁיּוֹם אֶחָד עוֹלֶה לָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ —

Against this claim Rava said: But can we not invoke an a fortiori argument to prove just the opposite? Whereas in the case of a menstruating woman, where the beginning of the day is not counted as a full day at the end of her seven-day period of ritual impurity and instead she must wait until the end of the seventh day and immerse in a ritual bath only in the evening, yet nevertheless the end of the day is counted as a full day at the beginning of her ritually impure period, since if she experienced bleeding shortly before sunset that day is considered as the first day of her seven-day period of impurity; if so, in the case of a year, where one day is counted as a full year at the end of the year,

אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיּוֹם אֶחָד עוֹלֶה בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ?

is it not right that one day should count as a full year at the beginning of the year?

וְאֶלָּא מַאי — רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים בָּעֵי! דִּתְנַן: אֵין נוֹטְעִין וְאֵין מַבְרִיכִין וְאֵין מַרְכִּיבִין עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וְאִם נָטַע וְהִבְרִיךְ וְהִרְכִּיב — יַעֲקוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַרְכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים — שׁוּב אֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת.

Rather, what opinion does it follow? If the baraita was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, does it follow the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that only thirty days are considered like a year? If so, then thirty days and another thirty days are required: Thirty days for the planting to take root, and another thirty days to count as a year. As we learned in a mishna: One may not plant, layer, or graft trees on the eve of the Sabbatical Year less than thirty days before Rosh HaShana, and if one planted, layered, or grafted, he must uproot it, as the planting will take root only in the seventh year; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any grafting that does not take root within three days will never take root. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Two weeks are needed for the planting to take root.

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשִׁים — צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה — צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת — צָרִיךְ שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִי נָמֵי, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — שְׁלֹשָׁה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים בָּעֵי!

And on this topic Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: According to the statement of the one who says thirty days, this means that it requires thirty days for the planting to take root and another thirty days to count as a year. And according to the statement of the one who says three days, this means that it requires thirty-three days. And according to the statement of the one who says two weeks, this means that it requires two weeks for the planting to take root and another thirty days to count as a year. And if the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that only three days are needed for the planting to take root, it still requires three days for the planting to take root and thirty days to count as a year. If so, the baraita cannot be understood even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכִי קָאָמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים — לִקְלִיטָה.

Rather, it must be understood as follows: The baraita was actually taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and when it says thirty days, it is referring to the time needed for the planting to take root.

אִי הָכִי, שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד בָּעֵי! קָא סָבַר: יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים עוֹלֶה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, it requires thirty-one days; thirty days for the planting to take root and one more day to count as a year. The Gemara answers: This is theoretically correct, but he holds that the thirtieth day is counted for here and for there, i.e., it counts as both the thirtieth day for taking root and as a day that is counted as a year.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וַיְהִי בְּאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לְחֹדֶשׁ״, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מִדְּאַכַּתִּי יוֹם אֶחָד הוּא דְּעָיֵיל בַּשָּׁנָה וְקָא קָרֵי לַהּ שָׁנָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar, who disagree about how much time must pass to count as a year, expounded the same verse. As the verse states: “And it came to pass in the one and six hundredth year, in the first month on the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from off the earth” (Genesis 8:13). Rabbi Meir holds: From the fact that it was only one day into the year, as it was still the first day of the first month, and yet it is called the six hundred and first year, learn from here that one day in a year is already considered a year.

וְאִידַּךְ: אִי כְּתִיב בְּ״שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וְאַחַת שָׁנָה״ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״בְּאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה״, ״שָׁנָה״ אַ״שֵּׁשׁ מֵאוֹת״ קָאֵי. וּמַאי ״אַחַת״ — אַתְחַלְתָּא דְּאַחַת קָאָמַר.

And the other tanna, Rabbi Elazar, expounds the verse as follows. If it had written: In the six hundred and first year, it would be as you said. However, now that it is written: “In the one and six hundredth year,” I can say that the word “year” relates to “six hundredth,” thereby teaching that it is still considered the six hundredth year. And what is meant by “one”? That it is the beginning of one year, but not that the first day counts as a year.

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ״, מִדְּאַכַּתִּי יוֹם אֶחָד הוּא דְּעָיֵיל בַּחֹדֶשׁ וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ חֹדֶשׁ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: יוֹם אֶחָד בַּחֹדֶשׁ חָשׁוּב חֹדֶשׁ, וּמִדְּיוֹם אֶחָד בַּחֹדֶשׁ חָשׁוּב חֹדֶשׁ — שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בַּשָּׁנָה חֲשׁוּבִין שָׁנָה. וְחֹדֶשׁ לִמְנוּיָיו, וְשָׁנָה לִמְנוּיֶיהָ.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Elazar, what is the rationale for his opinion? From where does he learn that thirty days are counted as a year? As it is written: “In the first month on the first day of the month.” Since it was only one day into the month, and yet it is called a month, learn from here that one day in a month is already considered a month. And since one day in a month is already considered a month, likewise thirty days in a year are already considered a year, as a month is calculated according to its unit, and a year is calculated according to its unit. If one unit by which a month is calculated, i.e., a day, counts as a full month, so too, one unit by which a year is calculated, i.e., a month, counts as a full year.

מִכְּלַל דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ בְּנִיסָן נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם.

§ The Gemara comments: By inference, both of them, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar, hold that the world was created in Nisan and that the years are counted from that month, as, if the world were created in Tishrei and the count started then, the first day of the first month of the six hundred and first year would already have been six months into the year for the purpose of counting years.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בְּתִשְׁרִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם, בְּתִשְׁרִי נוֹלְדוּ אָבוֹת, בְּתִשְׁרִי מֵתוּ אָבוֹת, בַּפֶּסַח נוֹלַד יִצְחָק, בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה נִפְקְדָה שָׂרָה רָחֵל וְחַנָּה, בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה יָצָא יוֹסֵף מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין.

It is taught in a baraita that the tanna’im disagreed about this point: Rabbi Eliezer says: In Tishrei the world was created; in Tishrei the Patriarchs were born; in Tishrei the Patriarchs died; on Passover Isaac was born; on Rosh HaShana Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were remembered by God and conceived; on Rosh HaShana Joseph came out from prison;

בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בָּטְלָה עֲבוֹדָה מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם, בְּנִיסָן נִגְאֲלוּ, בְּתִשְׁרִי עֲתִידִין לִיגָּאֵל.

on Rosh HaShana our forefathers’ slavery in Egypt ceased; in Nisan the Jewish people were redeemed from Egypt; and in Tishrei in the future the Jewish people will be redeemed in the final redemption with the coming of the Messiah.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בְּנִיסָן נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם, בְּנִיסָן נוֹלְדוּ אָבוֹת, בְּנִיסָן מֵתוּ אָבוֹת, בְּפֶסַח נוֹלַד יִצְחָק, בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה נִפְקְדָה שָׂרָה רָחֵל וְחַנָּה, בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה יָצָא יוֹסֵף מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין, בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בָּטְלָה עֲבוֹדָה מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם, בְּנִיסָן נִגְאֲלוּ בְּנִיסָן עֲתִידִין לִיגָּאֵל.

Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees and says: In Nisan the world was created; in Nisan the Patriarchs were born; in Nisan the Patriarchs died; on Passover Isaac was born; on Rosh HaShana Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were remembered by God and conceived sons; on Rosh HaShana Joseph came out from prison; on Rosh HaShana our forefathers’ slavery in Egypt ceased; in Nisan the Jewish people were redeemed from Egypt; and in Nisan in the future the Jewish people will be redeemed in the final redemption.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּתִשְׁרִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי״. אֵיזֶהוּ חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁהָאָרֶץ מוֹצִיאָה דְּשָׁאִים וְאִילָן מָלֵא פֵּירוֹת — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה תִּשְׁרִי. וְאוֹתוֹ הַפֶּרֶק זְמַן רְבִיעָה הָיְתָה, וְיָרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים וְצִימֵּחוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ״.

The Gemara explains these matters in detail: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that the world was created in the month of Tishrei? As it is stated: “And God said: Let the earth bring forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind” (Genesis 1:11). Which is the month in which the earth brings forth grass and the trees are full of ripe fruit? You must say that this is Tishrei. And a further proof that the world was created in Tishrei is that when the world was first created, it needed rain so that the plants would grow, and the period beginning with Tishrei is a time of rain, and rain fell and the plants grew, as it is stated: “But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6).

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּנִיסָן נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע וְעֵץ עוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי״. אֵיזֶהוּ חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁהָאָרֶץ מְלֵיאָה דְּשָׁאִים וְאִילָן מוֹצִיא פֵּירוֹת — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר, זֶה נִיסָן. וְאוֹתוֹ הַפֶּרֶק, זְמַן בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וָעוֹף שֶׁמִּזְדַּוְּוגִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָבְשׁוּ כָרִים הַצֹּאן וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: From where is it derived that the world was created in the month of Nisan? As it is stated: “And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree yielding fruit” (Genesis 1:12). Which is the month in which the earth is full of grass and the trees begin to bring forth fruit? You must say that this is Nisan. And further proof that the world was created in Nisan is that when the world was first created, the animals had to breed in order to fill the world, and the period beginning with Nisan is a time when cattle, and beasts, and birds mate with one another, as it is stated: “The flocks are clothed in the meadows, and the valleys are wrapped in grain; they shout for joy, they also sing” (Psalms 65:14).

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״עֵץ עוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי״! הָהוּא לִבְרָכָה לְדוֹרוֹת הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, isn’t it written: “And tree yielding fruit,” indicating that the world was created at a time when the trees were just beginning to form their fruit? The Gemara answers: That verse is written as a blessing for future generations, that then too they will form their fruit.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״עֵץ פְּרִי״? הָהוּא כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית לְקוֹמָתָן נִבְרְאוּ, לְדַעְתָּן נִבְרְאוּ, לְצִבְיוֹנָן נִבְרְאוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכׇל צְבָאָם״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״צְבָאָם״, אֶלָּא ״צִבְיוֹנָם״.

The Gemara continues to ask: And according to the opinion of the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, isn’t it written: “Fruit tree,” indicating that the world was created in a season when the trees were already filled with their fruit? The Gemara answers: That verse may be understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the acts of Creation were created with their full stature, immediately fit to bear fruit; they were created with their full mental capacities; they were created with their full form. As it is stated: “And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host” (Genesis 2:1). Do not read it as “their host [tzeva’am]”; rather, read it as their form [tzivyonam], which implies that the trees were created filled with ripe fruit.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּתִשְׁרִי נוֹלְדוּ אָבוֹת — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה כׇּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיֶרַח הָאֵיתָנִים בֶּחָג״, יֶרַח שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ אֵיתָנֵי עוֹלָם.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that in Tishrei the Patriarchs were born? As it is stated: “And all the men of Israel assembled themselves before King Solomon at the feast in the month of the mighty [eitanim], which is the seventh month” (I Kings 8:2), i.e., Tishrei. What is the meaning of the phrase: The month of the mighty? It is the month in which the mighty ones of the world, i.e., the Patriarchs, were born.

מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״אֵיתָן״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּתַקִּיפֵי הוּא — כְּדִכְתִיב: ״אֵיתָן מוֹשָׁבֶךָ״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״שִׁמְעוּ הָרִים אֶת רִיב ה׳ וְהָאֵיתָנִים מוֹסְדֵי אָרֶץ״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״קוֹל דּוֹדִי הִנֵּה זֶה בָּא מְדַלֵּג עַל הֶהָרִים מְקַפֵּץ עַל הַגְּבָעוֹת״. ״מְדַלֵּג עַל הֶהָרִים״ — בִּזְכוּת אָבוֹת. ״מְקַפֵּץ עַל הַגְּבָעוֹת״ — בִּזְכוּת אִמָּהוֹת.

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the term eitan denotes mighty? As it is written: “Strong [eitan] is Your dwelling place, and You put Your nest in a rock” (Numbers 24:21). And it says: “Hear, O mountains, the Lord’s controversy, and you strong [eitanim] foundations of the earth” (Micah 6:2), which is a call to the Patriarchs. And it says: “The voice of my beloved; behold, he comes leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills” (Song of Songs 2:8): “Leaping upon the mountains” means that the redemption will arrive early in the merit of the Patriarchs, who are called mountains, and “skipping upon the hills” means that it will come in the merit of the Matriarchs.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּנִיסָן נוֹלְדוּ אָבוֹת — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בִשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִית בְּחֹדֶשׁ זִיו״ — בְּיֶרַח שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ זִיוְתָנֵי עוֹלָם.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: From where is it derived that in Nisan the Patriarchs were born? As it is stated: “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv” (I Kings 6:1). This means in the month in which the radiant ones [zivtanei] of the world, the Patriarchs, were born.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״בְּיֶרַח הָאֵיתָנִים״! הָתָם, דְּתַקִּיפֵי בְּמִצְוֹת.

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, isn’t it written: “In the month of the mighty,” which indicates that the Patriarchs were born in Tishrei? The Gemara answers: There, it means that the month is mighty in mitzvot, due to the many Festivals that occur in Tishrei.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״בְּחֹדֶשׁ זִיו״? הַהוּא, דְּאִית בֵּיהּ זִיוָא לְאִילָנֵי. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דִּנְפַק בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן וְחָזֵי אִילָנֵי דִּמְלַבְלְבִי, אוֹמֵר: בָּרוּךְ שֶׁלֹּא חִיסֵּר מֵעוֹלָמוֹ כְּלוּם, וּבָרָא בּוֹ בְּרִיּוֹת טוֹבוֹת וְאִילָנוֹת טוֹבוֹת לְהִתְנָאוֹת בָּהֶן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

The Gemara asks further: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, isn’t it written: “In the month of Ziv”? The Gemara answers: Ziv is not an allusion to the Patriarchs. Rather, it means that Nisan is the month in which there is radiance [ziv] for the trees. As Rav Yehuda said: One who goes out during the days of Nisan and sees trees that are blossoming recites: Blessed…Who has withheld nothing from His world and has created in it beautiful creatures and beautiful trees for human beings to enjoy.

מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּנִיסָן נוֹלְדוּ — בְּנִיסָן מֵתוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּתִשְׁרִי נוֹלְדוּ — בְּתִשְׁרִי מֵתוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַיּוֹם״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַיּוֹם״ — הַיּוֹם מָלְאוּ יָמַי וּשְׁנוֹתַי. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יוֹשֵׁב וּמְמַלֵּא שְׁנוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם מֵחֹדֶשׁ לְחֹדֶשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״.

The Gemara continues: The one who said that in Nisan the Patriarchs were born also holds that in Nisan they died. The one who says that in Tishrei they were born also holds that in Tishrei they died, as it is stated about Moses on the day of his death: “And he said to them: I am one hundred and twenty years old today” (Deuteronomy 31:2). As there is no need for the verse to state “today,” since it is clear that Moses was speaking on that day, what is the meaning when the verse states “today”? It is to teach that Moses was speaking precisely, as if to say: Today my days and years are exactly filled and completed. This comes to teach you that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and fills the years of the righteous from day to day and from month to month, as it is stated: “The number of your days I will fulfill” (Exodus 23:26). Similarly, the Patriarchs merited that their years be fulfilled to the day, and so they died on the same date they were born.

בְּפֶסַח נוֹלַד יִצְחָק, מְנָלַן — כְּדִכְתִיב: ״לַמּוֹעֵד אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ״. אֵימַת קָאֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּפֶסַח וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ בַּעֲצֶרֶת — בְּחַמְשִׁין יוֹמִין מִי קָא יָלְדָה? אֶלָּא דְּקָאֵי בַּעֲצֶרֶת וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ בְּתִשְׁרִי — אַכַּתִּי בְּחַמְשָׁה יַרְחֵי מִי קָא יָלְדָה? אֶלָּא דְּקָאֵי בְּחַג וְקָאָמַר לַהּ בְּנִיסָן.

It was taught in the baraita: On Passover Isaac was born. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written that the angel who informed Sarah that she would bear a son told Abraham: “At the appointed time [mo’ed] I will return to you, at this season, and Sarah shall have a son” (Genesis 18:14). This is understood to mean: At the time of the next Festival [mo’ed]. When did the angel say this? If we say that it was on Passover and he said to him that Sarah would have a son on Shavuot, can a woman give birth after only fifty days? Rather, say that it was Shavuot and he said that she would give birth on the Festival that occurs in the month of Tishrei, i.e., Sukkot. But still, can she give birth after only five months? Rather, you must say that it was Sukkot, and he spoke about the Festival that occurs in the month of Nisan, i.e., Passover.

אַכַּתִּי, בְּשִׁיתָּא יַרְחֵי מִי קָא יָלְדָה? תָּנָא: אוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת הָיְתָה. סוֹף סוֹף, כִּי מַדְלֵי מָר יוֹמֵי טוּמְאָה — בָּצְרִי לְהוּ!

The Gemara asks further: But still, can a woman give birth after only six months? The Gemara answers: A Sage taught in a baraita: That year was a leap year, in which an additional month of Adar was added before Nisan, and a woman can indeed give birth after seven months. The Gemara raises another question: Ultimately, if one deducts Sarah’s days of ritual impurity, as when the angel spoke Sarah had not yet conceived, and there is a tradition that on that day she began menstruating, as is alluded to in the verse: “After I am grown old, shall I have pleasure” (Genesis 18:12), there are less than seven months.

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה — אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, יוֹלֶדֶת לְשִׁבְעָה — יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי לִתְקוּפוֹת הַיָּמִים״, מִיעוּט תְּקוּפוֹת — שְׁתַּיִם, וּמִיעוּט יָמִים — שְׁנַיִם.

Mar Zutra said: Even according to the one who said that if a woman gives birth to a viable baby in her ninth month, she cannot give birth prematurely, and if she does not complete nine full months’ gestation the baby will not survive, nevertheless, if a woman gives birth in her seventh month, she may give birth early, before the seventh month is complete. As it is stated about the birth of Samuel: “And it came to pass after cycles of days that Hannah conceived and bore a son” (I Samuel 1:20), which is understood as follows: The minimum of “cycles,” seasons of three months, is two, and the minimum of “days” is two. Consequently, it is possible for a woman to give birth after a pregnancy of six months and two days.

בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה נִפְקְדָה שָׂרָה רָחֵל וְחַנָּה. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָתְיָא ״פְּקִידָה״ ״פְּקִידָה״, אָתְיָא ״זְכִירָה״ ״זְכִירָה״. כְּתִיב בְּרָחֵל: ״וַיִּזְכּוֹר אֱלֹהִים אֶת רָחֵל״, וּכְתִיב בְּחַנָּה: ״וַיִּזְכְּרֶהָ ה׳״, וְאָתְיָא ״זְכִירָה״ ״זְכִירָה״ מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״שַׁבָּתוֹן זִכְרוֹן תְּרוּעָה״.

It was taught in the baraita: On Rosh HaShana, Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were revisited by God and conceived children. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Elazar said: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between one instance of the term revisiting [pekida] and another instance of the term revisiting, and by means of a verbal analogy between one instance of the term remembering [zekhira] and another instance of the word remembering. It is written about Rachel: “And God remembered Rachel” (Genesis 30:22), and it is written about Hannah: “And the Lord remembered her” (I Samuel 1:19). And the meaning of these instances of the term remembering is derived from another instance of the term remembering, with regard to Rosh HaShana, as it is written: “A solemn rest, memorial proclaimed with the blast of a shofar” (Leviticus 23:24). From here it is derived that Rachel and Hannah were remembered by God on Rosh HaShana.

״פְּקִידָה״ ״פְּקִידָה״, כְּתִיב בְּחַנָּה: ״כִּי פָקַד ה׳ אֶת חַנָּה״, וּכְתִיב בְּשָׂרָה: ״וַה׳ פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה״.

And the meaning of one instance of the term revisiting is derived from another instance of the term revisiting. It is written about Hannah: “And the Lord revisited Hannah” (I Samuel 2:21), and it is written about Sarah: “And the Lord revisited Sarah” (Genesis 21:1). From here it is derived that just as Hannah was revisited on Rosh HaShana, so too, Sarah was revisited on Rosh HaShana.

בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה יָצָא יוֹסֵף מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין, מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״תִּקְעוּ בַחֹדֶשׁ שׁוֹפָר בַּכֵּסֶא לְיוֹם חַגֵּנוּ. כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא וְגוֹ׳.

It was further taught in the baraita: On Rosh HaShana Joseph came out of prison. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “Sound a shofar at the New Moon, at the covered time of our Festival day. For this is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob” (Psalms 81:4–5). This is a reference to Rosh HaShana, the only Festival that occurs at the time of the New Moon, when the moon is covered and cannot be seen.

עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ בְּצֵאתוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.

And immediately afterward it is written: “This He ordained in Joseph for testimony, when he went out over the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6), implying that Joseph’s release from prison took place on Rosh HaShana.

בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בָּטְלָה עֲבוֹדָה מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם — כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מִתַּחַת סִבְלוֹת מִצְרַיִם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״הֲסִירוֹתִי מִסֵּבֶל שִׁכְמוֹ״.

It was also taught in the baraita: On Rosh HaShana our forefathers’ slavery in Egypt ceased. From where is this known? It is written here: “And I will bring you out from under the burdens of Egypt” (Exodus 6:6); and it is written there, with regard to Joseph: “I removed his shoulder from the burden” (Psalms 81:7). From here it is derived by verbal analogy between the two instances of the word “burden” that just as Joseph was released from prison in Tishrei, so too, the slavery of our forefathers in Egypt ended in Tishrei.

בְּנִיסָן נִגְאֲלוּ — כִּדְאִיתָא. בְּתִשְׁרִי עֲתִידִין לִיגָּאֵל — אָתְיָא ״שׁוֹפָר״ ״שׁוֹפָר״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״תִּקְעוּ בַחֹדֶשׁ שׁוֹפָר״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״בְּיוֹם הַהוּא יִתָּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל״.

It was taught in the baraita: In Nisan our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is explicitly stated in the Torah. The baraita continues: In Tishrei in the future the Jewish people will be redeemed in the final redemption. This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between one instance of the word shofar and another instance of the word shofar. It is written here, with regard to Rosh HaShana: “Sound a shofar at the New Moon” (Psalms 81:4), and it is written there, with regard to the final redemption: “And it shall come to pass on that day, that a great shofar shall be blown” (Isaiah 27:13).

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בְּנִיסָן נִגְאֲלוּ, בְּנִיסָן עֲתִידִין לִיגָּאֵל — מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֵיל שִׁמּוּרִים״ — לַיִל הַמְשׁוּמָּר וּבָא מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית.

It was also taught in the baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: In Nisan our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt; and in Nisan in the future the Jewish people will be redeemed in the final redemption. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the final redemption will be in Nisan? The verse states: “It is a night of watching for the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this is the Lord’s night of watching, for all the children of Israel throughout their generations” (Exodus 12:42). This teaches that the night of Passover is a night that has been continuously watched, i.e., set aside for the purpose of redemption, from the six days of Creation, and it will continue to be so until the final redemption.

וְאִידַּךְ: לַיְלָה הַמְּשׁוּמָּר וּבָא מִן הַמַּזִּיקִין.

The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, understand this verse? He derives from it that this is a night that is continuously watched and protected from demons, meaning that demons have no power on the first night of Passover.

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בִּשְׁנַת שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְחַיֵּי נֹחַ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ״, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּאִיָּיר הָיָה, יוֹם שֶׁמַּזַּל כִּימָה שׁוֹקֵעַ בַּיּוֹם וּמַעְיָנוֹת מִתְמַעֲטִין. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁשִּׁינּוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן, שִׁינָּה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲלֵיהֶם מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, וְהֶעֱלָה מַזַּל כִּימָה בַּיּוֹם, וְנָטַל שְׁנֵי כּוֹכָבִים מִכִּימָה וְהֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם.

And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua follow their lines of reasoning, as they disagreed about this same issue in another context as well. As it is taught in a baraita: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day were all the fountains of the great deep broken open, and the windows of heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11). Rabbi Yehoshua says: That day was the seventeenth of Iyyar, the second month of the year counting from Nisan, which is the day that the constellation of Kima sets during the day and the season that the springs diminish with the increased heat. But because the people of the generation of the flood changed their actions for the worse, the Holy One, Blessed be He, changed for them the acts of Creation, and instead of Kima setting, He caused the constellation of Kima to rise during the day and He removed two stars from Kima, and in this way He brought a flood to the world.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּמַרְחֶשְׁוָן הָיָה, יוֹם שֶׁמַּזַּל כִּימָה עוֹלֶה בַּיּוֹם וּמַעְיָנוֹת מִתְגַּבְּרִים.

Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says: That day was the seventeenth of Marḥeshvan, the second month counting from Tishrei, which is the day that the constellation of Kima rises during the day and the season that the springs increase.

וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁשִּׁינּוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם, שִׁינָּה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲלֵיהֶם מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, וְהֶעֱלָה מַזַּל כִּימָה בַּיּוֹם, וְנָטַל שְׁנֵי כּוֹכָבִים וְהֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם.

But because the people changed their actions for the worse, the Holy One, Blessed be He, changed for them the acts of Creation and He caused the constellation of Kima to rise during the day, and He removed two stars from it and He brought a flood to the world.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״שֵׁנִי״. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי ״שֵׁנִי״? שֵׁנִי לְדִין.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that the flood began in the month of Iyyar, this is as it is written: “In the second month,” which is referring to the month of Iyyar, the second month from Nisan. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the flood began in the month of Marḥeshvan, what is the meaning of “the second month”? The Gemara answers: It means second to the month that includes the day of judgment, which is the month of Tishrei.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הַיְינוּ דְּשִׁינָּה. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי שִׁינָּה?

The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that the flood began in the month of Iyyar, this is what it means that He changed the acts of Creation with a flood, as rain does not usually fall in Iyyar. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the flood began in Marḥeshvan, what did He change?

כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ. בְּרוֹתְחִין קִלְקְלוּ — בַּעֲבֵירָה, וּבְרוֹתְחִין נִידּוֹנוּ — כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַחֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ שָׁכָכָה״.

The Gemara answers: Even according to Rabbi Eliezer a change was made, in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: They sinned with boiling heat, and they were punished with boiling heat; they sinned with the boiling heat of the sin of forbidden sexual relations, and they were punished with the boiling heat of scalding waters. This is derived from a verbal analogy. It is written here, with regard to the flood: “And the waters abated” (Genesis 8:1), and it is written elsewhere, with regard to King Ahasuerus: “And the heated anger of the king abated” (Esther 7:10), which implies that the word “abated” means cooled. This indicates that at first the waters of the flood had been scalding hot.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹנִין לַמַּבּוּל כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְלַתְּקוּפָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. חַכְמֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מוֹנִין אַף לַמַּבּוּל כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The Jewish Sages count the years from Creation and the flood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, from Tishrei, and they calculate the cycles of the sun and the moon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from Nisan. The sages of the gentile nations of the world, on the other hand, count both the years from Creation and the flood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from Nisan.

וְלַיְּרָקוֹת. תָּנָא: לַיְּרָקוֹת וְלַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְלַנְּדָרִים. לַיְּרָקוֹת מַאי נִינְהוּ? מַעֲשֵׂר יָרָק.

§ The mishna taught: And the first of Tishrei is the new year for vegetables. It is taught in a baraita: The first of Tishrei is the new year for vegetables, and for tithes, and for vows. The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term: For vegetables? It means for the vegetable tithe, i.e., one may not take teruma or tithes from vegetables picked before Rosh HaShana in order to fulfill the obligation for vegetables picked after Rosh HaShana.

הַיְינוּ מַעַשְׂרוֹת? תְּנָא דְּרַבָּנַן וְקָתָנֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the meaning of the term for tithes, and yet the baraita distinguishes between them. The Gemara answers: The baraita taught first about a tithe that is by rabbinic law, i.e., the vegetable tithe, that its new year is the first of Tishrei, and then it teaches about a tithe that is by Torah law, i.e., the tithe of grain, wine, and oil, that its new year is also the first of Tishrei.

וְלִיתְנֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּרֵישָׁא! אַיְּידֵי דַּחֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ — אַקְדְּמַהּ. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן? תְּנָא דְּרַבָּנַן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna of the baraita teach that which is by Torah law in the first clause. The Gemara explains: Since the halakha with regard to vegetable tithes was dear to him, he mentioned it first. He taught first about the tithe that is by rabbinic decree, as it involves a greater novelty, and afterward he taught about the tithe that is by Torah law. The Gemara asks further: And with regard to the tanna of our mishna, who mentioned only vegetables but not tithes, what is his reasoning? The Gemara explains: He taught vegetable tithes, which are by rabbinic decree, and from which one may infer all the more so that the first of Tishrei is the new year for the tithe of grain, wine, and oil, which is by Torah law.

וְלִיתְנֵי ״מַעֲשֵׂר״! אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן. וְלִיתְנֵי ״יָרָק״! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי יָרָק, דִּתְנַן: יָרָק הַנֶּאֱגָד — מִשֶּׁיֵּאָגֵד, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱגָד — מִשֶּׁיְּמַלֵּא אֶת הַכְּלִי.

The Gemara raises a question about the baraita: But let the tanna of the baraita teach: Tithe, in the singular. Why teach tithes in the plural? The Gemara answers: He uses this formulation to include both the animal tithe and the grain tithe. The Gemara asks further: But let him teach: Vegetable, in the singular. Why teach: Vegetables, in the plural? The Gemara answers: He means to include two categories of vegetables, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a type of vegetable that is usually made into bundles before being sold, the time of tithing is from when it is bundled; and with regard to a type of vegetable that is not usually made into such bundles, the time of tithing is from when one fills a vessel with it.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִיקֵּט יָרָק עֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְחָזַר וְלִיקֵּט

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If one picked vegetables on the eve of Rosh HaShana before the sun had set, so that they belong to the previous year, and then he returned and he picked more vegetables

מִשֶּׁתָּבֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ — אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין, לֹא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן, וְלֹא מִן הַיָּשָׁן עַל הֶחָדָשׁ. אִם הָיְתָה שְׁנִיָּה נִכְנֶסֶת לִשְׁלִישִׁית — שְׁנִיָּה מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, שְׁלִישִׁית — מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי.

after sunset, so that they belong to the new year, one may not set aside teruma and tithe from the one to the other, as one may not set aside teruma and tithe from the new crop for the old nor from the old crop for the new. If it was the second year of the Sabbatical cycle going into the third year, the halakha is: From what he picked in the second year he must set aside first tithe, which he gives to a Levite, and second tithe, which he eats in Jerusalem; from what he picked in the third year, he must set aside first tithe and poor man’s tithe, which he gives to one who is needy.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: ״כִּי תְכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר אֶת כׇּל מַעְשַׂר תְּבוּאָתְךָ בַּשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁלִישִׁית שְׁנַת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״, שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר אֶחָד. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִבְטַל.

From where are these matters derived that during the third year one must set aside poor man’s tithe and not second tithe? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithes of your produce in the third year, which is the year of the tithe” (Deuteronomy 26:12). This is referring to a year when there is only one of the two tithes that had been given in the previous years. How so? One sets aside first tithe and poor man’s tithe, which is explicitly mentioned in that section, and second tithe is nullified that year.

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַף מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי יִבְטַל — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל הַלְוִיִּם תְּדַבֵּר וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם מֵאִתָּם בְּנַחֲלַתְכֶם״, הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְנַחֲלָה: מָה נַחֲלָה אֵין לָהּ הֶפְסֵק — אַף מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אֵין לוֹ הֶפְסֵק.

Or perhaps it is not like this, but in fact even first tithe is nullified during the third year and only one tithe is set aside, i.e., the poor man’s tithe. Therefore, the verse states: “Thus speak to the Levites, and say to them: When you take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance” (Numbers 18:26). The verse juxtaposes the first tithe that is given to the Levites to an inheritance of land: Just as with regard to an inheritance there is no interruption, as by Torah law a landed inheritance cannot be sold in perpetuity, but rather it passes from one generation to the next without interruption, so too, with regard to the first tithe that is given to the Levites there is no interruption, but rather it is taken every year.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כִּי תְכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר וְגוֹ׳״, שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר אֶחָד. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִבְטַל. יָכוֹל אַף מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי יִבְטַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבָא הַלֵּוִי״, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁבָּא — תֵּן לוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The same halakha is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithes of your produce in the third year, which is the year of the tithe.” This is referring to the year when there is only one of the two tithes that had been given in the previous years. How so? One sets aside first tithe and poor man’s tithe, and second tithe is canceled. One might have thought that even first tithe is canceled during the third year. Therefore, the verse states: “And the Levite, because he has no part or inheritance with you, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 14:29). Whenever the Levite comes, give him; every year you must give the Levite his tithe. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶל הַלְוִיִּם תְּדַבֵּר וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם מֵאִתָּם בְּנַחֲלַתְכֶם״, הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְנַחֲלָה: מָה נַחֲלָה אֵין לָהּ הֶפְסֵק — אַף מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אֵין לוֹ הֶפְסֵק.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One need not learn this from here but from another source, as it says: “Thus speak to the Levites, and say to them: When you take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance.” The verse juxtaposes the first tithe to an inheritance of land: Just as with regard to a landed inheritance there is no interruption, so too, with regard to first tithe there is no interruption.

וְלַנְּדָרִים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְשָׁנָה — מוֹנֶה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. וְאִם אָמַר לְשָׁנָה זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא עָמַד אֶלָּא בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם אֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה.

§ It was taught in the baraita cited above: And the first of Tishrei is the new year for vows. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another for a year counts twelve months from day to day, from the day that the vow was taken. This applies whether one took a vow not to derive any benefit from another for a year, or he was the subject of someone else’s vow prohibiting him from deriving any benefit from that individual’s property for a year. But if, when he took the vow, he said: For this year, then even if he took the vow only on the twenty-ninth of Elul, once the first day of Tishrei, the following month, has arrived, it is counted as a year, and he is permitted to derive benefit from the other.

אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה, לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ נַפְשֵׁיהּ קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ — וְהָא אִצְטַעַר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara comments: This is true even according to the one who said that one day in a year is not considered a year, since in the case of a vow the person accepted upon himself to suffer affliction, and he has already achieved his goal and suffered affliction, and so he has fulfilled his vow.

וְאֵימָא נִיסָן? בִּנְדָרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

The Gemara asks: But say that a year with regard to vows ends in Nisan. The Gemara answers: The halakha is that with regard to vows, follow the ordinary language of people. The meaning of a vow is understood in accordance with the way that the words are used in common speech, and when people speak of a year, they ordinarily count it from the beginning of Tishrei.

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַתִּלְתָּן — מִשֶּׁתִּצְמַח, הַתְּבוּאָה וְהַזֵּיתִים — מִשֶּׁיָּבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ.

We learned in a mishna there (Ma’asrot 1:3): From when is produce obligated in tithes? Fenugreek is obligated from the time when it sprouts. Grain and olives are obligated from the time when they have reached one-third of their growth.

מַאי מִשֶּׁתִּצְמַח — מִשֶּׁתִּצְמַח לִזְרָעִים.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: From the time when it sprouts? Fenugreek begins to sprout almost immediately after it is planted. The Gemara answers: It means from the time when it sprouts for seed, i.e., from the time that its seeds are sufficiently developed to sprout into another crop.

הַתְּבוּאָה וְהַזֵּיתִים מִשֶּׁיָּבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בְּמוֹעֵד שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה בְּחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת״, שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ בְּחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת? שְׁמִינִית הִיא!

It was taught in the mishna: Grain and olives are obligated in tithes from the time when they have reached one-third of their growth. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that the years of produce follow the first third of their growth? Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some determined that this statement was said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The verse states: “At the end of every seven years, in the time of the year of release, in the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 31:10). What is the purpose of the Sabbatical Year being mentioned with the festival of Sukkot? The festival of Sukkot is already the eighth year.

אֶלָּא, לוֹמַר לָךְ: כׇּל תְּבוּאָה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה — אַתָּה נוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִנְהַג שְׁבִיעִית בַּשְּׁמִינִית.

Rather, it comes to tell you that the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year continue to apply on Sukkot of the following year, as you must treat all produce that reached one-third of its growth in the Sabbatical Year before Rosh HaShana with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, even if it fully grows and is able to be used only in the eighth year.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי:

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi:

וְדִלְמָא לָא עָיֵיל כְּלָל, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא תְּשַׁמֵּט וְתֵיזִיל עַד חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת!

But perhaps the verse is referring to produce that did not grow at all during the seventh year, and nevertheless, the Merciful One states in the Torah that all the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year continue to apply until the festival of Sukkot of the eighth year.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחַג הָאָסִיף בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה״, מַאי ״אָסִיף״? אִילֵּימָא: חַג הַבָּא בִּזְמַן אֲסִיפָה — הָכְתִיב: ״בְּאׇסְפְּךָ״.

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “And the festival of gathering, which is at the end of the year, when you have gathered in your labors out of the field” (Exodus 23:16). What is the meaning of “gathering”? If we say that it means: A Festival that comes at the time of gathering the crops, isn’t it already written: “When you have gathered in your labors”? There is no need to repeat this a second time.

אֶלָּא מַאי ״אָסִיף״ — קָצִיר. וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּכׇל תְּבוּאָה שֶׁנִּקְצְרָה בֶּחָג, בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וְקָא קָרֵי לַהּ ״בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה״.

Rather, what is meant here by “gathering”? It means harvesting. And the Sages have an accepted tradition that any grain that reaches full growth so that it is harvested on the festival of Sukkot is known to have reached one-third of its growth before Rosh HaShana, and the Torah calls that period of the year until Sukkot “at the end of the year,” thereby indicating that it is still subject to the halakhot governing the previous year.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בֵּין שְׁלִישׁ לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלִישׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אָמֵינָא לָךְ לָא תַּפֵּיק נַפְשָׁךְ לְבַר מֵהִלְכְתָא? כׇּל מִדּוֹת חֲכָמִים — כֵּן הוּא.

§ Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And are the Sages able to discern precisely between produce that reached one-third of its growth and produce that reached less than one-third of its growth? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do I not always tell you that you must not take yourself out of the bounds of the halakha? All the measures of the Sages are like this; they are precise and exact.

אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן. כְּבֵיצָה מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, כְּבֵיצָה חָסֵר שׁוּמְשׁוּם — אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין.

For example, one who immerses himself in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water is rendered pure, but in forty se’a less the tiny amount of a kortov, he cannot immerse and become pure in them. Similarly, an egg-bulk of impure food can render other food ritually impure, but an egg-bulk less even the tiny amount of a sesame seed does not render food ritually impure.

שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה — מִטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס, שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה חָסֵר נִימָא אַחַת — אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס.

So too, a piece of cloth three by three handbreadths in size is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading, but a piece of cloth three by three handbreadths less one hair [nima] is not susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading.

הֲדַר אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי. דִּבְעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ חַבְרַיָּיא מֵרַב כָּהֲנָא: עוֹמֶר שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ, מֵהֵיכָן הִקְרִיבוּהוּ? אִם תֹּאמַר דְּעָיֵיל בְּיַד גּוֹי, ״קְצִירְכֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — וְלֹא קְצִיר גּוֹי.

Rabbi Yirmeya then said: What I said is nothing, and my question had no basis, as it can be demonstrated that the Sages know how to determine that produce has reached one-third of its growth. As Rav Kahana was once asked by the other colleagues of the academy as follows: With regard to the omer offering that the Jewish people brought when they first entered Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua, from where did they bring it? If you say that this omer offering was brought from grain that grew in the possession of a gentile, there is a difficulty, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall bring an omer of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10), from which it can be derived that it must be your harvest, grown in the possession of a Jew, and not the harvest of a gentile.

מִמַּאי דְּאַקְרִיבוּ, דִּלְמָא לָא אַקְרִיבוּ! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאכְלוּ מֵעֲבוּר הָאָרֶץ מִמׇּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח״. מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח — אֲכוּל, מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא אֲכוּל. דְּאַקְרִיבוּ עוֹמֶר וַהֲדַר אָכְלִי. מֵהֵיכָן הִקְרִיבוּ?

The Gemara first questions the assumption of Rav Kahana’s colleagues: From where is it known that the Jewish people actually brought an omer offering that year? Perhaps they did not offer it at all. The Gemara rejects this argument: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “And they did eat of the produce of the land on the next day after Passover” (Joshua 5:11), which teaches: Only on the next day after Passover did they eat from the new grain, but initially they did not eat from it. Why? It is because they first brought the omer offering on the sixteenth of Nisan as is required, and only afterward did they eat from the new grain. Therefore the question remains: From where did they bring the omer offering?

אָמַר לָהֶן: כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ בְּיַד גּוֹי.

Rav Kahana said to them: Anything that came into the possession of a Jew and did not reach one-third of its growth in the possession of a gentile is fit to be harvested for the sake of the omer offering.

וְדִלְמָא עָיֵיל וְלָא קִים לְהוּ? אֶלָּא קִים לְהוּ — הָכָא נָמֵי קִים לְהוּ.

Rabbi Yirmeya concludes his proof: But there, too, one might ask: Perhaps the grain had in fact already reached one-third of its growth, but they could not discern with certainty between grain that had reached one-third of its growth and grain that had not. Rather, you must say that they were able to discern with certainty. Here, too, you can say that the Sages can discern with certainty between produce that has reached one-third of its growth before Rosh HaShana and produce that has not.

וְדִלְמָא לָא עָיֵיל כְּלָל, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּעָיֵיל רִיבְעָא — בֵּין שְׁלִישׁ לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלִישׁ לָא קִים לְהוּ!

The Gemara asks: This is not absolute proof, as perhaps the Jewish people brought the omer offering from grain that did not grow at all before they conquered the land, and the distinction was evident to all. But where produce reached one quarter of its growth, the Sages cannot discern with certainty the difference between one-third and less than one-third.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָעָם עָלוּ מִן הַיַּרְדֵּן בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּלָא עָיֵיל כְּלָל — בְּחַמְשָׁה יוֹמֵי מִי קָא מָלְיָא?

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “And the people came up from the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month” (Joshua 4:19). And if it enters your mind to say that the grain had not grown at all before the Jewish people entered the land, could it have reached full growth in just five days?

אֶלָּא מַאי, דְּעָיֵיל רִבְעָא אוֹ דַנְקָא? אַכַּתִּי בְּחַמְשָׁה יוֹמֵי מִי קָא מָלְיָא! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר: ״אֶרֶץ צְבִי״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ — הָכָא נָמֵי: ״אֶרֶץ צְבִי״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Rather, what can one say? That the grain had reached one quarter or one-sixth [danka] of its growth before the Jewish people conquered the land? This too is difficult, as one can still ask: Could the grain have reached full growth in just five days? Rather, what have you to say? One could say that with regard to Eretz Yisrael it is written: “The land of the deer” (Daniel 11:41), implying that the grain of Eretz Yisrael ripens with the swiftness of a deer. Here, too, one can say that “the land of the deer” is written with regard to Eretz Yisrael and applies to the ripening of the grain, so that it can ripen in just a few days.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּהַאי ״אָסִיף״ קָצִיר הוּא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״בְּאׇסְפְּךָ מִגׇּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ״, וְאָמַר מָר: בִּפְסוֹלֶת גּוֹרֶן וְיֶקֶב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר!

§ Rabbi Ḥanina strongly objects to the proof brought from the verse in Exodus cited above, which refers to Sukkot as the festival of gathering: How can you say that this “gathering” means harvesting? But isn’t it written: “You shall observe the festival of Sukkot seven days, after you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and the Master said about this: The verse speaks here of the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress, which is used to make the roof of the sukka. If so, the gathering mentioned with regard to the festival of Sukkot is referring not to harvesting but to gathering straw from the threshing floor.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא מִילְּתָא הֲוַאי בִּידַן, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא שְׁדָא בַּיהּ נַרְגָּא.

Rabbi Zeira said about this: This matter was in our hands, i.e., I thought that we had solid proof that the years for produce follow the first third of its growth, but Rabbi Ḥanina came and cast an axe upon it, cutting it down, as Rabbi Ḥanina’s objection has totally nullified the proof.

אֶלָּא מְנָלַן? כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשָׂת אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה לִשְׁלֹשׁ הַשָּׁנִים״,

The Gemara asks: Rather, from where do we derive that the years for produce follow the first third of its growth? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: The verse states: “And it shall bring forth fruit for the three years” (Leviticus 25:21);

אַל תִּקְרֵי ״לִשְׁלֹשׁ״, אֶלָּא ״לִשְׁלִישׁ״.

do not read it as “for three [lishelosh]” but as: For one-third [lishelish]. And learn from here that the year for tithes is determined by the date on which the produce reaches one-third of its growth.

וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! כְּתִיב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״וּזְרַעְתֶּם אֵת הַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁמִינִית וַאֲכַלְתֶּם מִן הַתְּבוּאָה יָשָׁן עַד הַשָּׁנָה הַתְּשִׁיעִית״.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the phrase is necessary for the meaning of the verse itself, to teach that the sixth year will be blessed so that it yields three years’ worth of produce. The Gemara answers: It is written in another verse: “And you shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old produce until the ninth year” (Leviticus 25:22), so that the latter verse teaches about the three years’ worth of produce, and the first verse is available to derive the halakha with regard to one-third growth.

תְּנַן הָתָם: הָאוֹרֶז וְהַדּוֹחַן וְהַפְּרָגִין וְהַשּׁוּמְשְׁמִין שֶׁהִשְׁרִישׁוּ לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה מִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשֶׁעָבַר, וּמוּתָּרִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וְאִם לָאו — אֲסוּרִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.

§ We learned in a mishna there: Rice, millet, poppy, and sesame that took root before Rosh HaShana are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, meaning that second tithe is set aside in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, and poor man’s tithe is set aside in the third and sixth years, and they are permitted even if the following year is a Sabbatical Year. If they did not take root before Rosh HaShana, they are prohibited if it is the Sabbatical Year, and in ordinary years they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year.

אָמַר רַבָּה, אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: אִילָן בָּתַר חֲנָטָה, תְּבוּאָה וְזֵיתִים בָּתַר שְׁלִישׁ, יָרָק בָּתַר לְקִיטָה. הָנֵי כְּמַאן שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן?

Rabba said: Say that the Sages said that the tithe year of a tree follows the time of the formation of its fruit, that of grain and olives follows the time that they reach one-third of their growth, and that of vegetables follows the time of their picking. The question may therefore be raised: With regard to these crops, i.e., rice, millet, poppy, and sesame, to what did the Sages equate them? Their tithe year is determined neither by their formation, nor by the time when they reach one-third of their growth, nor by their picking.

הֲדַר אָמַר רַבָּה: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁעֲשׂוּיִין פְּרָכִין פְּרָכִין, אָזְלִי רַבָּנַן בָּתַר הַשְׁרָשָׁה.

Rabba then said: The reason for their uniqueness with regard to tithing is that since these crops do not ripen all at once, but rather, they ripen and are gathered little by little over an extended period of time, if their year were to follow the time of their picking, people might set aside tithes from that which was picked before Rosh HaShana for that which was picked after Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the Sages decreed that their tithe year follows the time of their taking root, which is the same for the entire field.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְיִצְבּוֹר גּוֹרְנוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ, וְנִמְצָא תּוֹרֵם מִן הֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ עַל הֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ, מִן הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁבּוֹ עַל הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁבּוֹ!

Abaye said to him: Why should they have made such a decree? There is a better alternative: Let one pile the entire stock onto his threshing floor, into the middle of it, mix the stock together well, and then set aside teruma and tithes, and consequently it will turn out that he has set aside teruma and tithes from the new crop in the mixture for the new crop in it, and from the old crop in the mixture for the old crop in it.

מִי לָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפָּר אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי: פּוֹל הַמִּצְרִי שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ לְזֶרַע, מִקְצָתוֹ הִשְׁרִישׁ לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וּמִקְצָתוֹ הִשְׁרִישׁ לְאַחַר רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה — אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין לֹא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן וְלֹא מִן הַיָּשָׁן עַל הֶחָדָשׁ.

Abaye continued: Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: If the cowpea plant was planted for seed, not to be eaten as a vegetable but for the seeds, the beans themselves, either for eating or planting, and some took root already before Rosh HaShana, while some took root only after Rosh HaShana, one may not set aside teruma or tithes from this for that, as one may not set aside teruma or tithes from the new crop for the old or from the old crop for the new.

כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה — צוֹבֵר גּוֹרְנוֹ לְתוֹכוֹ, וְנִמְצָא תּוֹרֵם וּמְעַשֵּׂר מִן הֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ עַל הֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ, וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁבּוֹ עַל הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁבּוֹ.

How, then, should one act so that he not err and set aside teruma and tithes incorrectly? He should pile the entire stock onto his threshing floor, into the middle of it, mix the stock together well, and then set aside teruma and tithes, and consequently it will turn out that he has set aside teruma and tithes from the new crop in the mixture for the new crop in it, and from the old crop in the mixture for the old crop in it. Why not do the same for rice, millet, poppy, and sesame?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי קָאָמְרַתְּ? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי סָבַר יֵשׁ בִּילָּה.

Rabba said to Abaye: You are speaking of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? You cannot raise an objection from what he says, as Rabbi Shimon Shezuri holds that there is mixing. He assumes that the old and new were thoroughly mixed, so that the teruma and tithes set aside from the mixture have the same proportions of old and new crops as did the original crops.

וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי אֵין בִּילָּה.

But the Sages hold that there is no mixing; they do not assume that the old and new became thoroughly and evenly mixed. Therefore, piling the entire stock, mixing it together, and then setting aside teruma and tithes will not ensure that they are set aside correctly.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפָּר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לַכֹּל אֵין בִּילָּה, חוּץ מִיַּיִן וָשֶׁמֶן!

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar that he said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: And did Shmuel actually say this? But didn’t Shmuel say: There is no mixing for anything except for wine, oil, and other liquids? In the case of liquids he holds that everything is entirely mixed together, but not in the case of solids. How, then, could he have ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri?

אִשְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר גְּמַר פֶּרִי.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira forgot that which Shmuel said: In all cases, the tithe year follows the time of the full ripening of the produce. Therefore, all of the cowpea seeds may be tithed together, whether the plants from which they grew took root before or after Rosh HaShana. This is not due to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s rationale that there is mixing, but because all of the beans reach full ripening at the same time, and consequently, they are all considered produce of the incoming year.

וּצְרִיכָא: דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר יֵשׁ בִּילָּה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: לַכֹּל אֵין בִּילָּה.

The Gemara comments: It is necessary to state all three statements of Shmuel in order to clarify his position, as had Shmuel taught us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, I would have said that this is due to the fact that he holds that there is mixing even with regard to solids. Therefore, he teaches us the second statement, that there is no mixing for anything except wine, oil, and other liquids.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן לַכֹּל אֵין בִּילָּה — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי.

And had Shmuel taught us only that there is no mixing for anything except liquids, I would have said that he holds like the Sages with regard to tithes, that the mixture of cowpeas cannot be tithed together. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קַשְׁיָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר גְּמַר פֶּרִי.

And had Shmuel taught us only these two statements, I would have said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira that it is difficult to reconcile one statement of Shmuel with another statement of Shmuel. Therefore, he teaches us that in all cases, the tithe year follows the time of the full ripening of the produce, and it is for this reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר גְּמַר פֶּרִי — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ תְּבוּאָה וְזֵיתִים נָמֵי — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי בְּמַאי דִּפְלִיג.

And had Shmuel taught us only that in all cases the tithe year follows the time of the full ripening of the produce, I would have said that this applies even to grain and olives. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri with regard to his dispute with the Sages, i.e., with regard to beans, but with regard to grain and olives the tithe year follows the time that they reach one-third of their growth.

וְלַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, לַכֹּל אֵין בִּילָּה לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דִּלְיַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בִּילָּה.

The Gemara asks: But let him teach us only these two statements, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri and that in all cases the tithe year follows the full ripening of the fruit, which would suffice to clarify Shmuel’s position. Why do I need to be told that there is no mixing for anything? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us not that there is no mixing for solids, but that there is mixing for wine, oil, and other liquids.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״בְּאׇסְפְּךָ מִגׇּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ״, מָה גּוֹרֶן וָיֶקֶב מְיוּחָדִין שֶׁגְּדֵילִין עַל מֵי שָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה, וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה, אַף כֹּל שֶׁגְּדֵילִין עַל מֵי שָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה. יָצְאוּ יְרָקוֹת שֶׁגְּדֵילִין עַל מֵי שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה, וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The verse states: “After you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (Deuteronomy 16:13). This teaches that just as the grain that is brought to the threshing floor and the wine that is brought to the winepress are special in that they grow on the outgoing year’s water, i.e., the moisture in the ground from the previous winter’s rain, and the halakha is that they are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, so too, anything that grows on the outgoing year’s water is tithed in accordance with the outgoing year. This comes to exclude vegetables, which grow on the incoming year’s water, as their growth cycle is short and they are nurtured by the rain that falls while they are growing. Consequently, they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״בְּאׇסְפְּךָ מִגׇּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ״, מָה גּוֹרֶן וְיֶקֶב מְיוּחָדִין שֶׁגְּדֵילִין עַל רוֹב מַיִם, וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה, אַף כֹּל שֶׁגְּדֵילִין עַל רוֹב מַיִם — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה. יָצְאוּ יְרָקוֹת שֶׁגְּדֵילִין עַל כׇּל מַיִם, וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.

Rabbi Akiva says: This is the way the verse should be expounded: “After you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress”; this teaches us that just as the grain that is brought to the threshing floor and the wine that is brought to the winepress are special in that they grow on most water, i.e., rainfall is sufficient and they do not require irrigation, and the halakha is that they are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, so too, anything that grows on most water is tithed in accordance with the outgoing year. This comes to exclude vegetables, which grow on all water, i.e., they require irrigation as well. Consequently, they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּצָלִים הַסָּרִיסִין וּפוֹל הַמִּצְרִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. דִּתְנַן: בְּצָלִים הַסָּרִיסִין וּפוֹל הַמִּצְרִי שֶׁמָּנַע מֵהֶן מַיִם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשֶׁעָבַר וּמוּתָּרִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וְאִם לָאו — אֲסוּרִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva? Rabbi Abbahu said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to seedless onions and cowpeas, as we learned in a mishna: Seedless onions, which are cultivated for their greens and not for their bulbs or seeds, and the cowpea plant, which was planted to be eaten as a vegetable, from which one withheld water for thirty days before Rosh HaShana, so that their green portions stopped growing and they began to grow for seed, are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, and they are permitted if the new year is the Sabbatical Year. And if not, they are prohibited if it is the Sabbatical Year, and in ordinary years they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year. Therefore, the halakha depends not on the species of plant but on whether the crop is in fact nurtured by the previous year’s water or the new year’s water, and this mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאִילָן. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הוֹאִיל וְיָצְאוּ רוֹב גִּשְׁמֵי שָׁנָה, וַעֲדַיִין רוֹב תְּקוּפָה מִבַּחוּץ.

§ The mishna taught: On the first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the statement of Beit Shammai. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the new year for trees was set on this date? Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The reason is since by that time most of the year’s rains have already fallen, and most of the season, i.e., winter, is yet to come, as it continues until the spring equinox, which usually occurs in Nisan.

מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרוֹב תְּקוּפָה מִבַּחוּץ, הוֹאִיל וְיָצְאוּ רוֹב גִּשְׁמֵי שָׁנָה.

The Gemara asks: What is he saying? The Gemara explains: This is what he said: Even though most of the winter season is yet to come, nevertheless, since most of the year’s rains have already fallen, it is considered the end of the previous year of rain, and anything that grows from then on is considered produce of the next year.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁלִּיקֵּט אֶתְרוֹג בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט וְנָהַג בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עִישּׂוּרִין,

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was once an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who picked an etrog on the first of Shevat and set aside two tithes. This occurred in the second or the fifth year of the Sabbatical cycle. In the second and fifth years one sets aside second tithe, whereas in the third and sixth years one sets aside poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Akiva set aside both second tithe and poor man’s tithe because he was in doubt about the halakha.

אֶחָד כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְאֶחָד כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.

One tithe was in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that the new year for trees is on the first of Shevat, in which case it was already the third or sixth year, when one must set aside poor man’s tithe; and one tithe was in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel that the new year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat, so it was still the second or fifth year, when one must set aside second tithe.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִנְהַג בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל נָהַג בָּהּ, אֶלָּא מִנְהַג רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָהַג בָּהּ.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: He did not act as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Rather, he acted as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer.

דִּתְנַן: אֶתְרוֹג שָׁוֶה לָאִילָן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּרָכִים, וְלַיָּרָק בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד. שָׁוֶה לָאִילָן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּרָכִים: לְעׇרְלָה וְלִרְבָעִי וְלִשְׁבִיעִית וּלְיָרָק בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד — שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת לְקִיטָתוֹ עִישּׂוּרוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

As we learned in a mishna: The etrog tree is like an ordinary tree in three ways and like a vegetable in one way. How so? It is like an ordinary tree in three ways: With regard to orla, that the fruit of the first three years after the tree is planted is forbidden; with regard to fourth-year produce, that the fruit that grows in the fourth year after the tree is planted must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there or else it must be redeemed; and with regard to the Sabbatical Year, that the year is determined by the time of the formation of its fruit. And the etrog is like a vegetable in one way, which is that its tithe year follows the time of the picking of its fruit; this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֶתְרוֹג שָׁוֶה לָאִילָן לְכׇל דָּבָר.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The etrog is like fruit of a tree with regard to all matters, and so its tithe year also follows the time of the formation of its fruit. Since Rabbi Akiva was in doubt whether the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel or Rabbi Eliezer, he set aside two tithes in order to follow both of their opinions.

וּמִי עָבְדִינַן כִּתְרֵי חוּמְרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: לְעוֹלָם הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְהָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — עוֹשֶׂה. כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל — עוֹשֶׂה. מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית הִלֵּל — רָשָׁע. מֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַכְּסִיל בַּחֹשֶׁךְ הוֹלֵךְ״. אֶלָּא: אִי כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי — בְּקוּלֵּיהוֹן וּבְחוּמְרֵיהוֹן. אִי כְּבֵית הִלֵּל — בְּקוּלֵּיהוֹן וּבְחוּמְרֵיהוֹן.

The Gemara questions Rabbi Akiva’s conduct: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. If he adopts both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he adopts both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, one should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies. If so, why did Rabbi Akiva follow two contradictory stringencies?

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא גְּמָרֵיהּ אִסְתַּפַּק לֵיהּ, וְלָא יְדַע אִי בֵּית הִלֵּל בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט אוֹמֵר, אִי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט אוֹמֵר.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva wished to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but he was in doubt about his tradition and did not know whether Beit Hillel said that the new year for trees is on the first of Shevat or whether they said that it is on the fifteenth of Shevat, and so he set aside two tithes in order to conform with both possibilities.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִנְהַג בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל נָהַג בָּהּ, אֶלָּא מִנְהַג רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָהַג בָּהּ. בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט — כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי נָהַג בָּהּ!

The Gemara further clarifies the baraita, which states: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: He did not act as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel; rather, he acted as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: Seeing that he did this on the first of Shevat, it would seem that he acted in accordance with the practice of Beit Shammai. According to Beit Hillel, both the formation of the fruit and its picking took place in the same year, as the new year does not begin until the fifteenth of Shevat, and so there would have been no need to set aside two tithes.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא: הָכָא בְּאֶתְרוֹג שֶׁחָנְטוּ פֵּירוֹתָיו קוֹדֶם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר דְּאִידַּךְ שְׁבָט עָסְקִינַן. וּבְדִין הוּא אֲפִילּוּ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן, וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָה.

Rabbi Ḥanina said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥananya who said: Here we are dealing with an etrog tree whose fruit was formed prior to the fifteenth of the other, previous, Shevat, in the second year, and it was picked on the first of the following Shevat, in the third year. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of the formation of its fruit, the fruit was obligated in second tithe, whereas according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel that the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of its picking, it was obligated in poor man’s tithe, and so Rabbi Akiva set aside two tithes. And by right it should have taught that even if the fruit had been picked earlier, any time after the fifteenth of the previous Shevat, but the incident that took place, took place in this way, that the fruit was picked on the first of Shevat.

רָבִינָא אָמַר, כְּרוֹךְ וּתְנִי: לֹא אֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט הָיָה — אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט הָיָה, וְלֹא מִנְהַג בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל נָהַג בָּהּ — אֶלָּא מִנְהַג רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָהַג בָּהּ.

Ravina said: Combine the two statements and teach the baraita as follows: It was not on the first of Shevat that Rabbi Akiva picked the fruit, but on the fifteenth of Shevat, and he did not act as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, but rather, he acted as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, both in accordance with the practice of Beit Hillel.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶתְרוֹג אַחַר לְקִיטָתוֹ עִישּׂוּרוֹ כְּיָרָק, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁלּוֹ תִּשְׁרִי.

§ Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Now that Rabban Gamliel has said that the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of the picking of its fruit, like a vegetable, its new year for tithing is Tishrei, like other vegetables.

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לִיקֵּט אֶתְרוֹג עֶרֶב חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְחָזַר וְלִיקֵּט מִשֶּׁתָּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ — אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין לֹא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן וְלֹא מִן הַיָּשָׁן עַל הֶחָדָשׁ. הָיְתָה שְׁלִישִׁית נִכְנֶסֶת לִרְבִיעִית — שְׁלִישִׁית מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי, רְבִיעִית מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי.

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one picked the fruit of an etrog tree on the eve of the fifteenth of Shevat before the sun had set, and then he picked more fruit after sunset, one may not set aside teruma and tithes from the one for the other, as one may not set aside teruma and tithes from the new crop for the old or from the old crop for the new. If he did this when it was the third year of the Sabbatical cycle going into the fourth year, the halakha is as follows: From what he picked in the third year he must set aside first tithe and poor man’s tithe, and from what he picked in the fourth year he must set aside first tithe and second tithe.

מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר לְקִיטָה — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְקָתָנֵי שְׁבָט!

The Gemara clarifies this ruling: Whom did you hear that said the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of the picking of its fruit? It was Rabban Gamliel. And yet this baraita is teaching that the new year for tithing an etrog is the fifteenth of Shevat, against the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who says that according to Rabban Gamliel it is the first of Tishrei.

אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶתְרוֹג אַחַר לְקִיטָה כְּיָרָק — רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁלּוֹ שְׁבָט.

Rather, if this was said, it was said as follows: Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Even though Rabban Gamliel said that the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of the picking of its fruit, like a vegetable, its new year is in Shevat, like a tree.

מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּקָתָנֵי ״אִם הָיְתָה שְׁנִיָּה נִכְנֶסֶת לִשְׁלִישִׁית״ וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״אִם הָיְתָה שְׁלִישִׁית נִכְנֶסֶת לִרְבִיעִית״?

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the baraita with regard to one who picked vegetables on the eve of Rosh HaShana, such that it teaches the case when it was the second year of the Sabbatical cycle going into the third year, and what is different here, in the baraita dealing with one who was picking the fruit of an etrog tree on the eve of the fifteenth of Shevat, such that it teaches the case when it was the third year going into the fourth year? Why is the same example not brought in both cases?

מִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאֶתְרוֹג קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ יְדָא וְאַיְּידֵי דִּמְמַשְׁמְשִׁי בֵּיהּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּשְׁבִיעִית, לָא טָעֵין פֵּרֵי עַד תְּלָת שְׁנִין.

The Gemara answers: It teaches us a matter in passing, that it is damaging for an etrog when the tree is handled, and since everyone handles it in the Sabbatical Year, as all the orchards are declared ownerless and everyone is permitted to enter and pick produce, the tree does not bear fruit that is fit for eating for another three years.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֶתְרוֹג, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁלּוֹ אֵימָתַי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁבָט. שְׁבָט דָּחֳדָשִׁים, אוֹ שְׁבָט דִּתְקוּפָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּחֳדָשִׁים.

Rabbi Yoḥanan inquired of Rabbi Yannai: With regard to an etrog, when is its new year? Rabbi Yannai said to him: It is in Shevat. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked again: Are you referring to the lunar month of Shevat or to the Shevat of the solar season, which begins thirty days after the winter solstice, but on a different date each year? Rabbi Yannai said to him: I am referring to the lunar month of Shevat.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָיְתָה שָׁנָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב שָׁנִים.

Rava inquired of Rav Naḥman, and some say that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who inquired of Rabbi Yannai: If it was a leap year, what is the halakha? Does the new year for trees then move to the First Adar, which is the penultimate month in a leap year? He said to him: Follow the majority of years. Even in a leap year the new year for trees is in Shevat.

אָמַר רַבָּה: אֶתְרוֹג בַּת שִׁשִּׁית שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִשְׁבִיעִית — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַבִּיעוּר. וּבַת שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִשְׁמִינִית — פְּטוּרָה בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר וְחַיֶּיבֶת בַּבִּיעוּר.

Rabba said: An etrog from the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle that entered into, and was picked in, the Sabbatical Year is exempt from tithes, like the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and is also exempt from the mitzva of elimination of Sabbatical Year produce from one’s house after produce of that particular species is no longer found in the field. A Sabbatical Year etrog that entered into, and was picked in, the eighth year is exempt from tithes but is subject to the mitzva of elimination of Sabbatical Year produce from one’s house.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא סֵיפָא — לְחוּמְרָא, אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבִּיעוּר — אַמַּאי? דְּאָמְרִינַן זִיל בָּתַר חֲנָטָה, אִי הָכִי תִּיחַיַּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר!

Abaye said to him: Granted, in the latter clause the halakha follows the more stringent approach, as it follows the time of the formation of the fruit, which was in the Sabbatical Year, and therefore the etrog is subject to the mitzva of elimination. But in the first clause, which states that the etrog is exempt from the mitzva of elimination, why is this so? It must be that we say to follow the time of the formation of the fruit, which was in the sixth year. But if so, it should be subject to tithes.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יַד הַכֹּל מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין בָּהּ, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ תִּיחַיַּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר?!

Rabba said to him: Everyone’s hand is touching it, as all are permitted to enter the orchards and touch all the fruit, and so the etrog is regarded as ownerless, and yet you wish to say that it should be subject to tithes? Even if it is not exempt as fruit of the Sabbatical Year, it is exempt from tithes because it is now ownerless.

וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: בַּת שִׁשִּׁית שֶׁנִּכְנֶסֶת לִשְׁבִיעִית — לְעוֹלָם שִׁשִּׁית, וּבַת שְׁבִיעִית הַנִּכְנֶסֶת לִשְׁמִינִית — לְעוֹלָם שְׁבִיעִית.

Rav Hamnuna argued and said: An etrog from the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle that entered into, and was picked in, the Sabbatical Year is always and for all purposes considered sixth-year produce. And an etrog from the Sabbatical Year that entered into, and was picked in, the eighth year is always and for all purposes considered produce of the Sabbatical Year.

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֶתְרוֹג בַּת שִׁשִּׁית שֶׁנִּכְנֶסֶת לִשְׁבִיעִית — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַבִּיעוּר, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדַל בְּחִיּוּב וְנִלְקַט בְּחִיּוּב. וּבַת שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁנִּכְנֶסֶת לִשְׁמִינִית — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַבִּיעוּר, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּבִיעוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדַל בִּשְׁבִיעִית וְנִלְקַט בִּשְׁבִיעִית.

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An etrog from the sixth year that entered into, and was picked in, the Sabbatical Year is exempt from tithes, and it is also exempt from the mitzva of elimination of Sabbatical Year produce from one’s house, as there is nothing that is subject to tithes unless it both grew at a time of obligation in tithes and was also picked at a time of obligation. Likewise, an etrog from the Sabbatical Year that entered into, and was picked in, the eighth year is exempt from tithes, and it is also exempt from the mitzva of elimination, as nothing is subject to the mitzva of elimination unless it both grew in the Sabbatical Year and was also picked in the Sabbatical Year.

רֵישָׁא קַשְׁיָא לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, סֵיפָא קַשְׁיָא בֵּין לְרַבָּה בֵּין לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא!

The Gemara notes: The first clause of this baraita poses a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, who says that a sixth-year etrog that was picked in the Sabbatical Year is subject to tithes. And the latter clause of the baraita poses a difficulty with regard to the opinions of both Rabba and Rav Hamnuna, as they both say that a Sabbatical-Year etrog that was picked in the eighth year is subject to the mitzva of elimination.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אַבְטוּלְמוֹס הֵעִיד מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה זְקֵנִים: אֶתְרוֹג — אַחַר לְקִיטָתוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר, וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ נִמְנוּ בְּאוּשָׁא, וְאָמְרוּ: אַחַר לְקִיטָתוֹ, בֵּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר בֵּין לִשְׁבִיעִית.

The Gemara answers: The matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders: An etrog follows the time of its picking in the matter of tithes. But our Sages voted in Usha and said that an etrog follows the time of its picking, both in the matter of tithes and in the matter of the Sabbatical Year.

שְׁבִיעִית מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ?

The Gemara raises a question about this baraita: Who mentioned anything about the Sabbatical Year? The subject of the discussion was tithes.

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֶתְרוֹג — אַחַר לְקִיטָתוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְאַחַר חֲנָטָה לִשְׁבִיעִית. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ נִמְנוּ בְּאוּשָׁא: אַחַר לְקִיטָתוֹ, בֵּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר בֵּין לִשְׁבִיעִית.

The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and is teaching the following: Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders: An etrog follows the time of its picking in the matter of tithes and it follows the time of the formation of its fruit in the matter of the Sabbatical Year. But our Sages voted in Usha and decided that an etrog follows the time of its picking, both in the matter of tithes and in the matter of the Sabbatical Year.

אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֶתְרוֹג בַּת שִׁשִּׁית שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִשְׁבִיעִית — לְעוֹלָם שִׁשִּׁית. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֶתְרוֹג בַּת שִׁשִּׁית שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִשְׁבִיעִית, אֲפִילּוּ כְּזַיִת וְנַעֲשֵׂית כִּכָּר — חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם טֶבֶל.

It was stated that the amora’im of Eretz Yisrael discussed this issue: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: An etrog from the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle that entered into, and was picked in, the Sabbatical Year is always and for all purposes considered as sixth-year produce. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A sixth-year etrog that entered into, and was picked in, the Sabbatical Year, although at the beginning of the Sabbatical Year it was only the size of an olive-bulk and during the Sabbatical Year it grew to the size of a loaf of bread, is considered sixth-year produce that is subject to tithing, and if one eats it without tithing, he is liable for eating untithed produce.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילָן שֶׁחָנְטוּ פֵּירוֹתָיו קוֹדֶם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט — מִתְעַשֵּׂר לְשָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה, אַחַר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט — מִתְעַשֵּׂר לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּאִילָן שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה שְׁתֵּי בְרִיכוֹת בַּשָּׁנָה.

The Sages taught in a baraita: A tree whose fruits were formed before the fifteenth of Shevat is tithed in accordance with the previous year, and if the fruits were formed after the fifteenth of Shevat it is tithed in accordance with the coming year. Rabbi Neḥemya said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a tree that produces two broods, two crops, in a single year.

שְׁתֵּי בְרִיכוֹת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּעֵין שְׁתֵּי בְרִיכוֹת.

The Gemara interrupts with a question about the wording of this baraita: Does it enter your mind to say two broods? Animals produce broods, but trees do not. Rather, say: Like two broods, i.e., two seasons’ worth of crops.

אֲבָל אִילָן הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּרִיכָה אַחַת, כְּגוֹן דְּקָלִים וְזֵיתִים וְחָרוּבִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָנְטוּ פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן קוֹדֶם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.

The baraita continues: But in the case of trees that produce only one brood of fruit, for example, palm trees, and olive trees, and carob trees, which yield fruit only once a year, although their fruit took form before the fifteenth of Shevat, they are tithed in accordance with the coming year, since they follow the time of their fruit’s picking. According to Rabbi Neḥemya, most fruit will be tithed according to the time that the fruit is picked, since only a minority of fruit trees produce two crops a year.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָהֲגוּ הָעָם בֶּחָרוּבִין כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The people were accustomed to act with regard to carobs in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, that their tithe year follows the time of the fruit’s picking.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ — שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁלָּהֶן שְׁנִיָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעוֹשׂוֹת לִשְׁלֹשׁ הַשָּׁנִים!

Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna that teaches: In the case of white fig trees, the Sabbatical Year for them with regard to the halakhot of eating and elimination is in the second year of the Sabbatical cycle, due to the fact that their fruit grows for three years, and so the fruit that ripens in the second year of the Sabbatical cycle had already taken form in the previous Sabbatical Year. This indicates that the tithe follows the time of the formation of the fruit and not the time of picking.

אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא הַכֹּהֵן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן: אַמַּאי אִישְׁתִּיק? לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי רַבָּנַן?!

Rabbi Yoḥanan was silent and did not respond, as though he had no answer. Rabbi Abba the priest said to Rabbi Yosei the priest: Why was Rabbi Yoḥanan silent? He should have said to Reish Lakish as follows: I am speaking to you of the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, and you say to me the opinion of the Rabbis?

מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁבְקַתְּ רַבָּנַן וְעָבְדַתְּ כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה?!

Rabbi Yosei the priest answered: He could not have made this argument, because Reish Lakish would then have said to him: Do you abandon the opinion of the Rabbis, who constitute the majority, and act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who expresses a sole dissenting opinion?

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ ״נָהֲגוּ״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי אִיסּוּרָא?! דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּמְקוֹם אִיסּוּרָא, כִּי נָהֲגוּ שָׁבְקִינַן לְהוּ?!

Rabbi Abba the priest asked further: Rabbi Yoḥanan should have said to him: I am speaking to you only about how the people practice and that their custom follows the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, and you say to me that it is a prohibition? Rabbi Yosei the priest answered: He could not have said this, because Reish Lakish would then have said to him: Where there is a prohibition, even if they were accustomed to act in a particular manner, would we leave them to continue?

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: כִּי אָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא — מַעֲשֵׂר חָרוּבִין דְּרַבָּנַן, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי שְׁבִיעִית דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?!

Rabbi Abba the priest asked further: Rabbi Yoḥanan should have said to Reish Lakish as follows: I am speaking to you about the tithe of carobs, which is only by rabbinic decree, as by Torah law all fruits apart from grapes and olives are exempt from tithing, and you speak to me about the Sabbatical Year, which is by Torah law? This being an irrefutable argument, the Gemara once again clarifies this matter.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא הַכֹּהֵן: תְּמֵיהַנִי אִם הֱשִׁיבָהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לִתְשׁוּבָה זוֹ. אִם הֱשִׁיבָהּ? הָא אוֹתְבַהּ! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אִם קִיבְּלָהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אִם לָא קִיבְּלָהּ.

Rather, Rabbi Abba the priest said: I wonder whether Reish Lakish actually raised this original objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, since it has such a clear refutation. The Gemara asks: Whether he asked it? But he did ask it, as is reported in the story. Rather, say: I wonder if Rabbi Yoḥanan accepted this question and was silent because he had nothing to answer, or he did not accept it but nevertheless remained silent because he thought the question was not worthy of an answer.

מַתְנִי׳ בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים הָעוֹלָם נִידּוֹן: בַּפֶּסַח — עַל הַתְּבוּאָה, בַּעֲצֶרֶת — עַל פֵּירוֹת הָאִילָן, בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה — כׇּל בָּאֵי עוֹלָם עוֹבְרִין לְפָנָיו כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַיּוֹצֵר יַחַד לִבָּם הַמֵּבִין אֶל כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם״, וּבֶחָג נִידּוֹנִין עַל הַמַּיִם.

MISHNA: At four times of the year the world is judged: On Passover judgment is passed concerning grain; on Shavuot concerning fruits that grow on a tree; on Rosh HaShana all creatures pass before Him like sheep [benei maron], as it is stated: “He Who fashions their hearts alike, Who considers all their deeds” (Psalms 33:15); and on the festival of Sukkot they are judged concerning water, i.e., the rainfall of the coming year.

גְּמָ׳ הֵי תְּבוּאָה? אִילֵּימָא הָא תְּבוּאָה דְּקָיְימָא, כׇּל הָנֵי הַרְפַּתְקֵי דַּעֲדוֹ עֲלַהּ אֵימַת אִיתְּדוּן? אֶלָּא תְּבוּאָה דְּמִזְדַּרְעָא.

GEMARA: The mishna taught that on Passover judgment is passed concerning grain. The Gemara asks: Which grain is judged on Passover? If we say it is the grain that is presently standing in the fields ready to be reaped between Passover and Shavuot, when was judgment passed with regard to all those events [harpatkei] that already happened to the grain while it was growing in the winter? Rather, the mishna must be referring to the grain that will be sown over the coming year.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּחַד דִּינָא מִתַּדְנָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: תְּבוּאָה שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהּ קֶרִי אוֹ אוֹנֶס, קוֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח — נִידּוֹנֶית לְשֶׁעָבַר, לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח — נִידּוֹנֶית לְהַבָּא. אָדָם שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ קֶרִי אוֹ אוֹנֶס, קוֹדֶם יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — נִידּוֹן לְשֶׁעָבַר, לְאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — נִידּוֹן לְהַבָּא.

The Gemara asks further: Is this to say that only one judgment is passed concerning a particular crop, and no more? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If grain suffers an incident or accident before Passover, it was judged in the past, the previous Passover; if this occurs after Passover, it was judged this Passover for the future. And similarly, if a person suffered an incident or accident before Yom Kippur, he was judged in the past, the previous Rosh HaShana; if this occurred after Yom Kippur, he was judged this Rosh HaShana for the future.

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּרֵי דִינֵי מִתַּדְנָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכָּךְ, כִּי חָזֵי אִינָשׁ דְּמַצְלַח זַרְעָא אַפְלָא — לִיקַדֵּים וְלִיזְרַע חָרְפָא. דְּעַד דְּמָטֵי לְמֵדַיְינֵיהּ — קָדֵים סָלֵיק.

Rava said: Learn from here that two judgments are passed concerning each crop, one covering the period between the time it is sown and Passover and another covering the period between Passover and the time it is harvested. Abaye said: Therefore, if a person sees that his slow-growing crops, those that are sown at the beginning of the winter but ripen only in the spring or summer, are doing well, he should quickly sow fast-growing crops, such as barley, which can be sown at the end of the winter and still ripen before Passover, as before it is brought to judgment on the next Passover it will already have successfully grown, since he knows that this year’s crops were judged for a favorable yield.

מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְלָא רַבִּי נָתָן.

The Gemara raises a question about the mishna: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan.

דְּתַנְיָא: הַכֹּל נִידּוֹנִים בָּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וּגְזַר דִּין שֶׁלָּהֶם נֶחְתָּם בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל נִידּוֹנִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וּגְזַר דִּין שֶׁלָּהֶם נֶחְתָּם כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּזְמַנּוֹ: בַּפֶּסַח — עַל הַתְּבוּאָה, בַּעֲצֶרֶת — עַל פֵּירוֹת הָאִילָן, בֶּחָג נִידּוֹנִין עַל הַמַּיִם. וְאָדָם נִידּוֹן בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וּגְזַר דִּין שֶׁלּוֹ נֶחְתָּם בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.

The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita: All are judged on Rosh HaShana, and their sentence is sealed on Yom Kippur; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: All are judged on Rosh HaShana, and their sentence is sealed each in its own time: On Passover the sentence is sealed concerning grain; on Shavuot concerning fruits that grow on a tree; on the festival of Sukkot they are judged concerning water; and mankind is judged on Rosh HaShana, and the sentence is sealed on Yom Kippur.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם נִידּוֹן בְּכׇל יוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּפְקְדֶנּוּ לִבְקָרִים״. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אָדָם נִידּוֹן בְּכׇל שָׁעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִרְגָעִים תִּבְחָנֶנּוּ״.

Rabbi Yosei says: A person is judged every day, and not just once a year, as it is stated: “You visit him every morning” (Job 7:18), meaning that every morning an accounting is made and a judgment is passed. Rabbi Natan says: A person is judged every hour, as it is stated: “You try him every moment” (Job 7:18).

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וְכִי קָתָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין — אַגְּזַר דִּין, אִי הָכִי — קַשְׁיָא אָדָם!

And lest you say that actually, the mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and when the mishna is taught, it is taught with regard to the sentence, and not the judgments, which are all passed on Rosh HaShana, if so, it is difficult with regard to mankind, as the mishna should have stated that the sentence is sealed on Yom Kippur.

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים הָעוֹלָם נִידּוֹן: בַּפֶּסַח — עַל הַתְּבוּאָה, בַּעֲצֶרֶת — עַל פֵּירוֹת הָאִילָן, בְּחָג נִידּוֹנִין עַל הַמַּיִם. וְאָדָם נִידּוֹן בָּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וּגְזַר דִּין שֶׁלּוֹ נֶחְתָּם בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְכִי קָתָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין — אַתְּחִלַּת דִּין.

Rava said: The tanna of the mishna is a tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as a tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: At four times of the year the world is judged: On Passover concerning grain; on Shavuot concerning fruits that grow on a tree; on the festival of Sukkot they are judged concerning water; and mankind is judged on Rosh HaShana and the sentence is sealed on Yom Kippur. And when the mishna is taught, it is taught with regard to the beginning of the judgment process, i.e., the judgment of mankind is initially passed on Rosh HaShana.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? כִּדְקָאָמַר טַעְמֵיהּ: ״וַתִּפְקְדֶנּוּ לִבְקָרִים״! אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי נָתָן? בְּחִינָה — עַיּוֹנֵי בְּעָלְמָא הִיא. פְּקִידָה נָמֵי עַיּוֹנֵי בְּעָלְמָא הִיא?!

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara is astonished by this question: Why ask about his reason? He stated his reason, the verse that states: “You visit him every morning.” The Gemara explains: This is what we are saying: If Rabbi Yosei relies on this verse, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that a person is judged every hour? And if you say that he holds that the verse “You try him every moment” cannot serve as proof, because trying merely indicates examination and not actual judgment, then in the same way visiting merely indicates examination. If so, there is no clear proof from this verse.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מֵהָכָא: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפַּט עַבְדּוֹ וּמִשְׁפַּט עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ״.

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Yosei’s reason is from here, another verse, which states: “To make the judgment of His servant and the judgment of His people Israel at all times, as each day may require” (I Kings 8:59), which indicates that the entire world is judged every day.

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֶלֶךְ וְצִבּוּר — מֶלֶךְ נִכְנָס תְּחִלָּה לַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפַּט עַבְדּוֹ וּמִשְׁפַּט עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל״. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמֵיתַב מַלְכָּא אַבָּרַאי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיפּוֹשׁ חֲרוֹן אַף.

§ About this verse Rav Ḥisda said: When a king and a community are brought before God for judgment, the king is brought in for judgment first, as it is stated: “To make the judgment of His servant,” and afterward: “And the judgment of His people Israel.” What is the reason for this? If you wish, say that it is not proper conduct for the king to stand outside and wait for the trial of his subjects to come to an end. And if you wish, say instead that the king is brought in first so that he may be judged before God’s anger intensifies due to the sins of the community, and consequently he may be saved from overly harsh judgment.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּמַאן מְצַלִּינַן הָאִידָּנָא אַקְּצִירֵי וְאַמְּרִיעֵי, כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבָּנַן, וְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: יָפָה צְעָקָה לָאָדָם בֵּין קוֹדֶם גְּזַר דִּין בֵּין לְאַחַר גְּזַר דִּין.

Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion do we pray nowadays on a daily basis for the sick and afflicted? The Gemara repeats the question: In accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that one is judged every day, and so there is reason to pray every day in order to affect the outcome of his judgment. And if you wish, say that actually, normative practice is even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one is judged only once a year, but also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Crying out to God is beneficial for a person both before his sentence has been issued and after his sentence has been issued.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבִיאוּ עוֹמֶר בַּפֶּסַח — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַפֶּסַח זְמַן תְּבוּאָה הוּא, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הָבִיאוּ לְפָנַי עוֹמֶר בַּפֶּסַח, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְבָּרֵךְ לָכֶם תְּבוּאָה שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבִיאוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בָּעֲצֶרֶת — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲצֶרֶת זְמַן פֵּירוֹת הָאִילָן הוּא, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הָבִיאוּ לְפָנַי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בַּעֲצֶרֶת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְבָּרְכוּ לָכֶם פֵּירוֹת הָאִילָן.

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: For what reason did the Torah say: Bring the omer offering on the second day of Passover? It is because Passover is the time of grain, the beginning of the grain harvest season, and therefore the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Bring the omer offering before Me on Passover so that the grain in the fields will be blessed for you. And for what reason did the Torah say: Bring the offering of the two loaves from the new wheat on Shavuot? It is because Shavuot is the time of the fruits that grow on a tree, when it begins to ripen, and therefore the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Bring the offering of the two loaves before Me on Shavuot so that the fruits that grow on a tree will be blessed for you.

וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה נַסְּכוּ מַיִם בֶּחָג — אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: נַסְּכוּ לְפָנַי מַיִם בֶּחָג, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְבָּרְכוּ לָכֶם גִּשְׁמֵי שָׁנָה. וְאִמְרוּ לְפָנַי בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה מַלְכִיּוֹת זִכְרוֹנוֹת וְשׁוֹפָרוֹת. מַלְכִיּוֹת — כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּמְלִיכוּנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, זִכְרוֹנוֹת — כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה זִכְרוֹנְיכֶם לְפָנַי לְטוֹבָה, וּבַמֶּה — בְּשׁוֹפָר.

And for what reason did the Torah say: Pour water onto the altar in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Pour water before Me on the festival of Sukkot so that the rains of the year, which begin to fall after Sukkot, will be blessed for you. And recite before Me on Rosh HaShana verses that mention Kingships, Remembrances, and Shofarot: Kingships so that you will crown Me as King over you; Remembrances so that your remembrance will rise before Me for good; and with what will the remembrance rise? It will rise with the shofar.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לָמָה תּוֹקְעִין בְּשׁוֹפָר שֶׁל אַיִל? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: תִּקְעוּ לְפָנַי בְּשׁוֹפָר שֶׁל אַיִל, כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶזְכּוֹר לָכֶם עֲקֵידַת יִצְחָק בֶּן אַבְרָהָם, וּמַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּאִילּוּ עֲקַדְתֶּם עַצְמְכֶם לְפָנַי.

Similarly, Rabbi Abbahu said: Why does one sound a blast with a shofar made from a ram’s horn on Rosh HaShana? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Sound a blast before Me with a shofar made from a ram’s horn, so that I will remember for you the binding of Isaac, son of Abraham, in whose stead a ram was sacrificed, and I will ascribe it to you as if you had bound yourselves before Me.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לָמָּה תּוֹקְעִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה? לָמָּה תּוֹקְעִין?! רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר תִּקְעוּ! אֶלָּא: לָמָּה מְרִיעִין? מְרִיעִין?! רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״זִכְרוֹן תְּרוּעָה״! אֶלָּא: לָמָּה תּוֹקְעִין וּמְרִיעִין כְּשֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין,

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Why does one sound [tokin] a blast on Rosh HaShana? The Gemara is astonished by the question: Why do we sound a blast? The Merciful One states in the verse: “Sound [tiku] a shofar” (Psalms 81:4). Rather, the question is: Why does one sound a staccato series of shofar blasts [terua] in addition to a long continuous shofar blast [tekia]? The Gemara is still surprised by the question: Sound a terua? The Merciful One states: “In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest unto you, a memorial proclaimed with the blast of horns [terua]” (Leviticus 23:24). Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak asked about the common practice in Jewish communities, which is not explicitly stated in the Torah: Why does one sound a long, continuous shofar blast [tekia] and then a staccato series of shofar blasts [terua] while the congregation is still sitting before the silent prayer,

וְתוֹקְעִין וּמְרִיעִין כְּשֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדִין — כְּדֵי לְעַרְבֵּב הַשָּׂטָן.

and then sound again a tekia and a terua while they are standing in the Amida prayer? He answers: In order to confuse the Satan, for this double blowing of the shofar demonstrates Israel’s love for the mitzva, and this will confuse Satan when he brings his accusations against Israel before the heavenly court, and the Jewish people will receive a favorable judgment.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵין תּוֹקְעִין לָהּ בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ — מְרִיעִין לָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּלָא אִיעַרְבַּב שָׂטָן.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said, playing on the double meaning of the word meri’in, which can mean either sound a terua or cause misfortune: Any year during which, due to some mishap, the shofar was not sounded at its beginning will suffer evil and misfortune at its end. What is the reason? Because Satan was not confused, and he was able to put forward his accusations, so that the Jewish people would be punished.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל שָׁנָה שֶׁרָשָׁה בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ — מִתְעַשֶּׁרֶת בְּסוֹפָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵרֵאשִׁית הַשָּׁנָה״ — ״מֵרֵשִׁית״ כְּתִיב. ״וְעַד אַחֲרִית״ — סוֹפָהּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ אַחֲרִית.

§ The Gemara brings a series of statements in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak, all of which relate to judgment: And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Any year that is poor [rasha] and troubled at its beginning will be made rich at its end, for it is stated: “From the beginning [mereishit] of the year” (Deuteronomy 11:12). The word meireishit is written defectively, without an alef, so that it may also be understood in the sense of rashut, poverty. The verse continues: “And until the end [aḥarit] of the year,” which means that the end of the year will have expectations of good things in the end [aḥarit].

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵין דָּנִין אֶת הָאָדָם אֶלָּא לְפִי מַעֲשָׂיו שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי שָׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶל קוֹל הַנַּעַר בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁם״.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A man is judged only according to his deeds at the time of his judgment, and not according to his future deeds, as it is stated with regard to Ishmael: “For God has heard the voice of the lad where he is” (Genesis 21:17). Although Ishmael and his descendants would act wickedly in the future, his prayer was heard and answered because he was innocent at the time.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַזְכִּירִין עֲוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: קִיר נָטוּי, וְעִיּוּן תְּפִלָּה, וּמוֹסֵר דִּין עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: כָּל הַמּוֹסֵר דִּין עַל חֲבֵירוֹ — הוּא נֶעֱנָשׁ תְּחִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל אַבְרָם חֲמָסִי עָלֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא אַבְרָהָם לִסְפּוֹד לְשָׂרָה וְלִבְכּוֹתָהּ״.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Three matters evoke a person’s sins, and they are: Endangering oneself by sitting next to an inclined wall that is about to collapse; expecting prayer to be accepted, as that leads to an assessment of one’s status and merit; and passing a case against another to Heaven, for Rabbi Avin said: Anyone who passes a case against another to God is punished first. Praying for God to pass judgment on another causes one’s own deeds to be examined and compared with the deeds of the other, as it is stated: “And Sarai said to Abram: My anger be upon you; I have given my maid into your bosom, and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes; let the Lord judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5), and it is written afterward: “And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her” (Genesis 23:2). Sarah called upon Heaven to pass judgment between her and her husband, and therefore she was punished and died first.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים מְקָרְעִין גְּזַר דִּינוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: צְדָקָה, צְעָקָה, שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם, וְשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה. צְדָקָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּצְדָקָה תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת״. צְעָקָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצְעֲקוּ אֶל ה׳ בַּצַּר לָהֶם וּמִמְּצוּקוֹתֵיהֶם יוֹצִיאֵם״. שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם, דִּכְתִיב: ״שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ לֹא תִקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי כִּי שָׂרָה שְׁמָהּ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וּבֵרַכְתִּי אוֹתָהּ וְגַם נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנָּה לְךָ בֵּן״. שִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּנָּחֶם הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם וְלֹא עָשָׂה״.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person’s sentence is torn up on account of four types of actions. These are: Giving charity, crying out in prayer, a change of one’s name, and a change of one’s deeds for the better. An allusion may be found in Scripture for all of them: Giving charity, as it is written: “And charity delivers from death” (Proverbs 10:2); crying out in prayer, as it is written: “Then they cry to the Lord in their trouble, and He brings them out of their distresses” (Psalms 107:28); a change of one’s name, as it is written: “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be” (Genesis 17:15), and it is written there: “And I will bless her, and I will also give you a son from her” (Genesis 17:16); a change of one’s deeds for the better, as it is written: “And God saw their deeds” (Jonah 3:10), and it is written there: “And God repented of the evil, which He had said He would do to them, and He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10).

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף שִׁינּוּי מָקוֹם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל אַבְרָם לֶךְ לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ״, וַהֲדַר: ״וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל״. וְאִידַּךְ: הָהוּא זְכוּתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא דְּאַהַנְיָא לֵיהּ.

And some say: Also, a change of one’s place of residence cancels an evil judgment, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Abram: Go you out of your county” (Genesis 12:1), and afterward it is written: “And I will make of you a great nation” (Genesis 12: 2). The Gemara explains: And the other one, i.e., Rabbi Yitzḥak, who does not include a change of residence in his list, holds that in the case of Abram, it was the merit and sanctity of Eretz Yisrael that helped him become the father of a great nation.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי רַבּוֹ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מַדּוּעַ אַתְּ הוֹלֶכֶת אֵלָיו הַיּוֹם לֹא חֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא שַׁבָּת״, מִכְּלָל דִּבְחֹדֶשׁ וְשַׁבָּת אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְמֵיזַל.

The Gemara cites two more statements in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak, relating to the Festivals: And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person is obligated to go out and greet his teacher on a Festival, as it is stated that the husband of the Shunamite woman asked, when she was readying herself to go to the prophet: “Why will you go to him today; it is neither the New Moon nor Shabbat” (II Kings 4:23). By inference, we learn that on the New Moon and on Shabbat, which in this context means a Festival that is a day of rest, she was required to go.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְטַהֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ״.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person is obligated to purify himself on a Festival, as it is stated: “And their carcasses you shall not touch; they are impure to you” (Leviticus 11:8). This verse is referring to the Festivals, as taught in the following baraita.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״וּבִנְבָלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ״, יָכוֹל יְהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּזְהָרִין עַל מַגַּע נְבֵילָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֱמוֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן מוּזְהָרִין, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מוּזְהָרִין.

This is also taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And their carcass you shall not touch.” One might have thought that ordinary Jews are prohibited from touching an animal carcass. Therefore, the verse states: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1). It is derived from here that the sons of Aaron are prohibited from defiling themselves, but the children of Israel, i.e., non-priests, are not prohibited from doing so.

וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה — כֹּהֲנִים מוּזְהָרִין, יִשְׂרְאֵלִים אֵינָן מוּזְהָרִין. טוּמְאָה קַלָּה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ״ — בָּרֶגֶל.

But are these matters not an a fortiori inference? If, with regard to severe impurity, i.e., contact with a human corpse, priests are prohibited from defiling themselves, while ordinary Israelites are not prohibited from doing so, in the case of light impurity, e.g., touching an animal carcass, is it not all the more so that Israelites be permitted to defile themselves? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And their carcass you shall not touch?” It means that on a Festival all are obligated to purify themselves.

אָמַר רַבִּי כְּרוּסְפָּדַאי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה סְפָרִים נִפְתָּחִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, אֶחָד שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִיִּים. צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְחַיִּים, רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְמִיתָה, בֵּינוֹנִיִּים — תְּלוּיִין וְעוֹמְדִין מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְעַד יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, זָכוּ — נִכְתָּבִין לְחַיִּים, לֹא זָכוּ — נִכְתָּבִין לְמִיתָה.

§ The Gemara goes back to discuss the Day of Judgment. Rabbi Kruspedai said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Three books are opened on Rosh HaShana before the Holy One, Blessed be He: One of wholly wicked people, and one of wholly righteous people, and one of middling people whose good and bad deeds are equally balanced. Wholly righteous people are immediately written and sealed for life; wholly wicked people are immediately written and sealed for death; and middling people are left with their judgment suspended from Rosh HaShana until Yom Kippur, their fate remaining undecided. If they merit, through the good deeds and mitzvot that they perform during this period, they are written for life; if they do not so merit, they are written for death.

אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין, מַאי קְרָא: ״יִמָּחוּ מִסֵּפֶר חַיִּים וְעִם צַדִּיקִים אַל יִכָּתֵבוּ״. ״יִמָּחוּ מִסֵּפֶר״ — זֶה סִפְרָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין, ״חַיִּים״ — זֶה סִפְרָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, ״וְעִם צַדִּיקִים אַל יִכָּתֵבוּ״ — זֶה סִפְרָן שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִיִּים.

Rabbi Avin said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, but not be written with the righteous” (Psalms 69:29). “Let them be blotted out of the book”; this is the book of wholly wicked people, who are blotted out from the world. “Of the living”; this is the book of wholly righteous people. “But not be written with the righteous”; this is the book of middling people, who are written in a separate book, not with the righteous.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ״, ״מְחֵנִי נָא״ — זֶה סִפְרָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים, ״מִסִּפְרְךָ״ — זֶה סִפְרָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, ״אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ״ — זֶה סִפְרָן שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִיִּים.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This matter is derived from here: “And if not, blot me, I pray You, out of Your book which you have written” (Exodus 32:32). “Blot me, I pray You”; this is the book of wholly wicked people, who are blotted out from the world. “Out of Your book”; this is the book of wholly righteous people, which is special and attributed to God Himself. “Which You have written”; this is the book of middling people.

תַּנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שָׁלֹשׁ כִּתּוֹת הֵן לְיוֹם הַדִּין: אַחַת שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאַחַת שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאַחַת שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִיִּים. צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם, רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרַבִּים מִיְּשֵׁנֵי אַדְמַת עָפָר יָקִיצוּ אֵלֶּה לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְאֵלֶּה לַחֲרָפוֹת לְדִרְאוֹן עוֹלָם״, בֵּינוֹנִיִּים — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם,

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: There will be three groups of people on the great Day of Judgment at the end of days: One of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written and sealed for eternal life. Wholly wicked people will immediately be written and sealed for Gehenna, as it is stated: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Middling people will descend to Gehenna to be cleansed and to achieve atonement for their sins,

וּמְצַפְצְפִין וְעוֹלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּאֵשׁ וּצְרַפְתִּים כִּצְרוֹף אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וּבְחַנְתִּים כִּבְחוֹן אֶת הַזָּהָב הוּא יִקְרָא בִשְׁמִי וַאֲנִי אֶעֱנֶה אוֹתוֹ״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמְרָה חַנָּה: ״ה׳ מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה מוֹרִיד שְׁאוֹל וַיָּעַל״.

and they will cry out in their pain and eventually ascend from there, as it is stated: “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; they shall call on My name, and I will answer them” (Zechariah 13:9). This is referring to the members of the third group, who require refinement and cleansing. And about them, Hannah said: “The Lord kills, and gives life; he brings down to the grave, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6).

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד. וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר דָּוִד: ״אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה׳ אֶת קוֹלִי״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר דָּוִד כׇּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ — ״דַּלּוֹתִי וְלִי יְהוֹשִׁיעַ״.

Beit Hillel say: He Who is “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) tilts the scales in favor of kindness, so that middling people should not have to pass through Gehenna. And about them, David said: “I love the Lord, Who hears my voice and my supplications” (Psalms 116:1). And about them, David said the entire passage: “I was brought low [daloti] and He saved me” (Psalms 116:6). Although they are poor [dalim] in mitzvot, God saves them.

פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן, וּפוֹשְׁעֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בְּגוּפָן — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם וְנִידּוֹנִין בָּהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — גּוּפָן כָּלֶה, וְנִשְׁמָתָן נִשְׂרֶפֶת, וְרוּחַ מְפַזַּרְתָּן תַּחַת כַּפּוֹת רַגְלֵי צַדִּיקִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַסּוֹתֶם רְשָׁעִים כִּי יִהְיוּ אֵפֶר תַּחַת כַּפּוֹת רַגְלֵיכֶם״.

The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies and also the rebellious people of the nations of the world who have sinned with their bodies descend to Gehenna and are judged there for twelve months. After twelve months, their bodies are consumed, their souls are burned, and a wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is stated: “And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet” (Malachi 3:21).

אֲבָל הַמִּינִין וְהַמָּסוֹרוֹת וְהָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים שֶׁכָּפְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, וְשֶׁכָּפְרוּ בִּתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים, וְשֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ מִדַּרְכֵי צִבּוּר, וְשֶׁנָּתְנוּ חִיתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, וְשֶׁחָטְאוּ וְהֶחְטִיאוּ אֶת הָרַבִּים, כְּגוֹן יָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט וַחֲבֵירָיו — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם וְנִידּוֹנִין בָּהּ לְדוֹרֵי דּוֹרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצְאוּ וְרָאוּ בְּפִגְרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הַפּוֹשְׁעִים בִּי וְגוֹ׳״.

But the heretics; and the informers; and the apostates [apikorsim]; and those who denied the Torah; and those who denied the resurrection of the dead; and those who separated from the ways of the Jewish community and refused to share the suffering; and those who cast their fear over the land of the living; and those who sinned and caused the masses to sin, for example, Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and his company; all of these people descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die; neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).

גֵּיהִנָּם כָּלֶה וְהֵן אֵינָן כָּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְצוּרָם לְבַלּוֹת שְׁאוֹל מִזְּבוּל לוֹ״. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בִּזְבוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִזְּבוּל לוֹ״, וְאֵין ״זְבוּל״ אֶלָּא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבוּל לָךְ״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמְרָה חַנָּה: ״ה׳ יֵחַתּוּ מְרִיבָיו״.

Gehenna will terminate, but they still will not terminate, as it is stated: “And their form shall wear away the netherworld, so that there be no dwelling for Him” (Psalms 49:15); that is to say, Gehenna itself will be worn away before their punishment has come to an end. And why are they punished so severely? Because they stretched out their hands against God’s dwelling, the Temple, and everything else that is sanctified, as it is stated: “So that there be no dwelling [zevul] for Him.” Dwelling [zevul] is referring here only to the Temple, as it is stated: “I have built You a house for dwelling [zevul] in” (I Kings 8:13). And about them Hannah said: “The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken in pieces” (I Samuel 2:10).

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: וּפְנֵיהֶם דּוֹמִין לְשׁוּלֵי קְדֵירָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: וְאִינְהוּ מִשַּׁפִּירֵי שַׁפִּירֵי בְּנֵי מָחוֹזָא, וּמִקַּרְיִין ״בְּנֵי גֵיהִנָּם״.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avin said: And their faces on the Day of Judgment will be black and sooty like the bottom of a pot. And Rava said: And they shall include the most handsome, i.e., upstanding, of the people of Meḥoza, as Rava thought that even the most upstanding people of the city of Meḥoza were wicked, and they shall be called the people of Gehenna.

אָמַר מָר, בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּאֵשׁ״! הָתָם, בְּפוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן.

The Master said in the baraita above: It stated that Beit Hillel say: He Who is “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) tilts the scales in favor of kindness, so that middling people will not have to pass through Gehenna. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And I will bring the third part through the fire” (Zechariah 13:9), implying that there is a third group, which is sent to Gehenna temporarily? The Gemara answers: There, the verse is referring to the rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies.

פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן — וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ לֵית לְהוּ תַּקַּנְתָּא?! כִּי לֵית לְהוּ תַּקָּנָה — בְּרוֹב עֲוֹנוֹת. הָכָא — מֶחֱצָה עֲוֹנוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה זְכִיּוֹת, וְאִית בְּהוּ נָמֵי עָוֹן דְּפוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן, לָא סַגְיָא לֵיהּ דְּלָאו ״וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּאֵשׁ״. וְאִם לָאו, ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד. וַעֲלֵיהֶן אָמַר דָּוִד: ״אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה׳״.

The Gemara asks: Can the verse be referring to the rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies? But didn’t you say that they have no rectification? The Gemara responds: When do they have no rectification? When in addition to their having sinned with their bodies, the majority of their actions are sins. But here, the verse is referring to people for whom half of their actions are sins and half are meritorious deeds, and those sins include the sin of the rebellious Jews who sin with their bodies. It is not sufficient that they not be subject to the verse: “And I will bring the third part through the fire.” However, if their sins and meritorious deeds are equally balanced, and they did not sin with their bodies, He Who is “abundant in kindness” tilts the scales in favor of kindness. And about them, David said: “I love the Lord, Who hears my voice and my supplications” (Psalms 116:1).

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה׳״ — אָמְרָה כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֵימָתַי אֲנִי אֲהוּבָה לְפָנֶיךָ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁאַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ קוֹל תַּחֲנוּנַי. ״דַּלּוֹתִי וְלִי יְהוֹשִׁיעַ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּלָּה אֲנִי מִן הַמִּצְוֹת — לִי נָאֶה לְהוֹשִׁיעַ.

Rava interpreted the verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I love the Lord, Who hears my voice and my supplications”? The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, when do I know that I am loved by You? When You hear the voice of my supplications, as the verse states: “I was brought low [daloti], and He saved me” (Psalms 116:6). Although I am poor [dala] in mitzvot, nevertheless it is fitting to save me.

פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן, מַאי נִיהוּ? אָמַר רַב: קַרְקַפְתָּא דְּלָא מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין. פּוֹשְׁעֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בְּגוּפָן — אָמַר רַב: בַּעֲבֵירָה.

The Gemara asks: The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies, who are they? Rav said: This is referring to the skull that did not ever don phylacteries. The Gemara asks further: The rebellious ones of the nations of the world who sin with their bodies, who are they? Rav said: They are those who engage in the sin, i.e., forbidden sexual relations.

וְשֶׁנָּתְנוּ חִיתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים — אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֶה פַּרְנָס הַמַּטִּיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל פַּרְנָס הַמַּטִּיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה בֵּן תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָכֵן יְרֵאוּהוּ אֲנָשִׁים לֹא יִרְאֶה כׇּל חַכְמֵי לֵב״.

And those who cast their fear over the land of the living, who are they? Rav Ḥisda said: This is referring to a communal leader [parnas] who casts excessive fear on the community not for the sake of Heaven. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any community leader who casts excessive fear on the community not for the sake of Heaven will be punished and not see any Torah scholar among his sons, as it is stated: “Men do therefore fear him; he sees not any who are wise of heart” (Job 37:24). One who brings others to fear him will not merit having wise-hearted people in his family.

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כּוֹבְשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יָשׁוּב יְרַחֲמֵנוּ יִכְבּוֹשׁ עֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: נוֹשֵׂא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע״.

§ It was taught in the baraita: Beit Hillel say: He who is “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) tilts the scales in favor of kindness, so that middling people will not have to pass through Gehenna. The Gemara asks: How does He do this? Rabbi Eliezer says: He pushes down on the side of the merits, tipping the scale in their favor, as it is stated: “He will again have compassion upon us; He will push down our iniquities” (Micah 7:19). Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: He bears, i.e., raises, the side of the sins, as it is stated: “He bears [noseh] sin and forgives transgression” (Micah 7:18).

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מַעֲבִיר רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, וְכֵן הִיא הַמִּדָּה. אָמַר רָבָא: וְעָוֹן עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נִמְחָק. דְּאִי אִיכָּא רוּבָּא עֲוֹנוֹת — מִחֲשִׁיב בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.

A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: He overlooks each and every first transgression, and that is the attribute of mercy, that God forgives one’s first sin, and therefore He tips the scale in favor of the merits. Rava said: But that sin itself, which God overlooks, is not completely erased; if the individual’s actions are still mostly sins, God counts the overlooked sin with them and metes out punishment accordingly.

רָבָא אָמַר: כׇּל הַמַּעֲבִיר עַל מִדּוֹתָיו — מַעֲבִירִין לוֹ עַל כׇּל פְּשָׁעָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע״. לְמִי נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן — לְמִי שֶׁעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע.

Rava understood this verse differently and said: With regard to whoever forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices done to him, the heavenly court in turn forgoes punishment for all his sins, as it is stated: “He bears sin and forgives transgression” (Micah 7:18). Whose sins does He bear? The sins of one who forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices committed against him.

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חֲלַשׁ, עָל רַב פָּפָּא לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּחֲלִישׁ לֵיהּ עָלְמָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: צְבִיתוּ לֵיהּ זְוַודְתָּא. לְסוֹף אִיתְּפַח, הֲוָה מִיכְּסִיף רַב פָּפָּא לְמִיחְזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאי חֲזֵית? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין, הָכִי הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הוֹאִיל וְלָא מוֹקֵים בְּמִילֵּיהּ — לָא תְּקוּמוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע״, לְמִי נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן — לְעוֹבֵר פֶּשַׁע.

It is related that Rav Huna, became sick, and Rav Pappa went into his home to inquire about his well-being. He saw that the world was growing weak for Rav Huna, i.e., he was dying. Rav Pappa said to his attendants: Prepare his provisions [zavdata], i.e., his shrouds. In the end, Rav Huna recovered. Rav Pappa was embarrassed to go and see him, as it seemed as if he had decreed Rav Huna’s death. Rav Huna’s friends said to him: What did you see when you were lying there suspended between life and death? He said to them: Yes, it was so, I was truly close to dying, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the heavenly court: Since he does not stand on his rights, i.e., he is ready to waive what is due him, you too should not be exacting with him in his judgment, as it is stated: “He bears [noseh] sin and forgives transgression.” Whose sins does He bear? The sins of one who forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices committed against him.

״לִשְׁאֵרִית נַחֲלָתוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: אַלְיָה — וְקוֹץ בָּהּ: ״לִשְׁאֵרִית נַחֲלָתוֹ״ — וְלֹא לְכׇל נַחֲלָתוֹ,

That same verse continues: “He bears sins and forgives transgression for the remnant of His inheritance” (Micah 7:18). Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: This is like the fat tail that has a thorn in it, i.e., something good that contains something bad. God forgives and pardons only “for the remnant of His inheritance,” but not for all His inheritance.

לְמִי שֶׁמֵּשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּשִׁירַיִם.

That is to say, God forgives sins only for one who regards himself as a remainder, i.e., of only secondary importance.

רַב הוּנָא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״צַדִּיק ה׳ בְּכׇל דְּרָכָיו״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְחָסִיד בְּכׇל מַעֲשָׂיו״! בַּתְּחִלָּה — צַדִּיק, וּלְבַסּוֹף — חָסִיד.

§ Rav Huna raised a contradiction between the two halves of a verse. It is written: “The Lord is righteous [tzaddik] in all His ways” (Psalms 145:17), indicating that God acts in accordance with the attribute of strict justice [tzedek], and then it is written in the same verse: “And kind [ḥasid] in all His works,” implying that He acts with grace and loving-kindness [ḥesed], going beyond the letter of the law. Rav Huna explained: Initially, at the time of judgment, He is righteous, but in the end, at the time of punishment, He is gracious.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״וּלְךָ ה׳ חָסֶד״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אַתָּה תְשַׁלֵּם לְאִישׁ כְּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ״. בַּתְּחִלָּה — ״כִּי אַתָּה תְּשַׁלֵּם כְּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ״, וּלְבַסּוֹף — ״וּלְךָ ה׳ חָסֶד״.

Rabbi Elazar raised a similar contradiction: It is written: “But to you, O Lord, belongs kindness” (Psalms 62:13), implying that God acts beyond the letter of the law, and then it is written in the same verse: “For You render to a man according to his deeds,” implying that He rewards and punishes measure for measure. Rabbi Elazar answered: Initially, at the time of judgment: “For You render to a man according to his deeds”; but in the end, at the time of punishment: “But to You, O Lord, belongs kindness.”

אִילְפַי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אִילְפָא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״, וּכְתִיב: ״וֶאֱמֶת״. בַּתְּחִלָּה — ״וֶאֱמֶת״, וּלְבַסּוֹף — ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״.

Ilfai, and some say it was the Sage Ilfa, also raised a contradiction: It is written in the list of God’s attributes: “And abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6), and it is written in the same verse: “And truth,” which implies the attribute of justice. He answered: Initially, at the time of judgment: “And truth,” i.e., God employs strict justice, but in the end, when He sees that the world cannot survive on judgment based only on truth and justice: “And abundant in kindness,” i.e., He is merciful.

״וַיַּעֲבוֹר ה׳ עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִלְמָלֵא מִקְרָא כָּתוּב, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאוֹמְרוֹ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּתְעַטֵּף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כִּשְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, וְהֶרְאָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה סֵדֶר תְּפִלָּה. אָמַר לוֹ: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹטְאִין — יַעֲשׂוּ לְפָנַי כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה וַאֲנִי מוֹחֵל לָהֶם.

§ The verse states: “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed” (Exodus 34:6). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Were it not explicitly written in the verse, it would be impossible to say this, as it would be insulting to God’s honor. The verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, wrapped Himself in a prayer shawl like a prayer leader and showed Moses the structure of the order of the prayer. He said to him: Whenever the Jewish people sin, let them act before Me in accordance with this order. Let the prayer leader wrap himself in a prayer shawl and publicly recite the thirteen attributes of mercy, and I will forgive them.

״ה׳ ה׳״ — אֲנִי הוּא קוֹדֶם שֶׁיֶּחְטָא הָאָדָם, וַאֲנִי הוּא לְאַחַר שֶׁיֶּחְטָא הָאָדָם וְיַעֲשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה — ״אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן״.

The verse continues: “The Lord, the Lord,” and it should be understood as follows: I am He before a person sins, and I am He after a person sins and performs repentance, as God does not recall for him his first sins, since He is always “God, merciful and gracious” (Exodus 34:6).

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בְּרִית כְּרוּתָה לִשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן חוֹזְרוֹת רֵיקָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי כּוֹרֵת בְּרִית״.

Rav Yehuda said: A covenant was made with the thirteen attributes that they will not return empty-handed, meaning that if one mentions them, he will certainly be answered, as it is stated in this regard: “Behold, I make a covenant” (Exodus 34:10).

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּדוֹלָה תְּשׁוּבָה שֶׁמְּקָרַעַת גְּזַר דִּינוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשְׁמֵן לֵב הָעָם הַזֶּה וְאׇזְנָיו הַכְבֵּד וְעֵינָיו הָשַׁע פֶּן יִרְאֶה בְעֵינָיו וּבְאׇזְנָיו יִשְׁמָע וּלְבָבוֹ יָבִין וָשָׁב וְרָפָא לוֹ״.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Great is repentance, for it tears up the sentence issued against a person, as it is stated: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and smear over their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and they will return, and be healed” (Isaiah 6:10), implying that if indeed they return and repent, they will be healed from all their sins.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְדִלְמָא לִפְנֵי גְּזַר דִּין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְרָפָא לוֹ״ כְּתִיב, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ רְפוּאָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה גְּזַר דִּין.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But perhaps this was said before the sentence was issued, but after one’s sentence has been decreed repentance no longer helps. Abaye said to him: It is written here: “And they will return and be healed” (Isaiah 6:10). What requires healing? An illness does. Consequently, you must say that the reference here is to a sentence that has already been issued, and even so, after repentance, they will be healed.

מֵיתִיבִי: הַשָּׁב בֵּינְתַיִם — מוֹחֲלִין לוֹ, לֹא שָׁב בֵּינְתַיִם — אֲפִילּוּ הֵבִיא כׇּל אֵילֵי נְבָיוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אֵין מוֹחֲלִין לוֹ! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּיָחִיד, הָא — בְּצִבּוּר.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one repents in the meantime, between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, he is forgiven; if he does not repent in the meantime, then even if he later brings as offerings all the rams of Nebaioth in the world, which are of the best quality, they do not forgive him in the Heavenly court. This implies that once one’s sentence has been decreed, even repentance cannot alter it. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where repentance is effective only before the sentence on Yom Kippur, the baraita is referring to repentance of an individual; there, where forgiveness is granted even after a sentence is issued, it is referring to communal repentance.

מֵיתִיבִי: ״עֵינֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּהּ״ — עִתִּים לְטוֹבָה עִתִּים לְרָעָה. עִתִּים לְטוֹבָה כֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וּפָסְקוּ לָהֶם גְּשָׁמִים מוּעָטִים, לְסוֹף חָזְרוּ בָּהֶן. לְהוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן אִי אֶפְשָׁר — שֶׁכְּבָר נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵרָה, אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מוֹרִידָן בִּזְמַנָּן, עַל הָאָרֶץ הַצְּרִיכָה לָהֶן — הַכֹּל לְפִי הָאָרֶץ.

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states: “A land which the Lord your God cares for; the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it” (Deuteronomy 11:12). God’s constant providence over Eretz Yisrael is sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad. Sometimes for the good; how so? If the Jews were wholly wicked on Rosh HaShana, so that only a meager amount of rain was decreed for them for the year, but in the end they repented, what can be done? To add rain is impossible, as the decree was already issued. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, causes those sparse rains to fall at the appropriate times on land that needs it, e.g., fields, vineyards, and gardens, all according to requirements of the land, and those rains are just as effective as a lot of rain.

עִתִּים לְרָעָה כֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וּפָסְקוּ עֲלֵיהֶן גְּשָׁמִים מְרוּבִּין, לְסוֹף חָזְרוּ בָּהֶן. לִפְחוֹת מֵהֶן אִי אֶפְשָׁר — שֶׁכְּבָר נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵרָה, אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מוֹרִידָן שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּן, עַל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לָהֶן.

Sometimes for bad; how so? If the Jewish people were wholly righteous on Rosh HaShana, so that much rain was decreed for them for that year, but in the end they regressed and sinned, what can be done? To reduce the amount of rain is impossible, as the decree was already issued. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, causes the rain to fall not at the appropriate time, and on land that does not need it, e.g., forests and deserts, and the ample rain is no more beneficial than meager rain.

לְטוֹבָה מִיהָא, לִיקְרְעֵיהּ לִגְזַר דִּינַיְיהוּ וְלוֹסֵיף לְהוּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּהָכִי.

The Gemara asks: When it is for good, however, let Him tear up their sentence and add to the rain that had originally been decreed for them. Since the baraita explains that God does not do so, it implies that an evil sentence cannot be rescinded, even if the entire community fully repents. The Gemara answers: It is different there, because it is possible to achieve the same result in this manner, by causing the rain to fall at the proper time and in the proper place, without rescinding the original sentence.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״יוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם בׇּאֳנִיּוֹת עוֹשֵׂי מְלָאכָה בְּמַיִם רַבִּים. הֵמָּה רָאוּ מַעֲשֵׂי ה׳ וְגוֹ׳ וַיֹּאמֶר וַיַּעֲמֵד רוּחַ סְעָרָה וַתְּרוֹמֵם גַּלָּיו. יָחוֹגּוּ וְיָנוּעוּ כַּשִּׁכּוֹר וְגוֹ׳ וַיִּצְעֲקוּ אֶל ה׳ בַּצַּר לָהֶם וְגוֹ׳ יוֹדוּ לַה׳ חַסְדּוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.

Come and hear a proof from a different baraita: The psalm states: “They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these saw the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep” (Psalms 107:23–24). The psalm continues: “For He commanded, and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves thereof…They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits’ end” (Psalms 107:25–27). It continues further: “Then they cry to the Lord in their trouble, and He brings them out of their distresses” (Psalms 107:28). And finally, “Let them give thanks to the Lord for His mercy, and for His wonderful works to the children of men” (Psalms 107:31).

עָשָׂה לָהֶן סִימָנִיּוֹת כְּאַכִּין וְרַקִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, לוֹמַר לָךְ: צָעֲקוּ קוֹדֶם גְּזַר דִּין — נַעֲנִין, צָעֲקוּ לְאַחַר גְּזַר דִּין — אֵינָן נַעֲנִין!

Markers were inserted here before each one of verses 23 through 28. These markers, which are the letter nun inverted, are similar in meaning to the words but and only in the Torah, to tell us that just as the Torah’s words are precise and cannot be changed, so too, these people cannot have their sentence changed. This tells you that if they cried out before the sentence was issued, they are answered, but if they cried out only after the sentence was issued, they are not answered.

הָנֵי נָמֵי כִּיחִידִין דָּמוּ.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, for those who go down to the sea in ships are also considered like individuals. Even if there are many such people, they do not constitute an entire community but only a small defined group within it.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁאֲלָה בְּלוֹרְיָא הַגִּיּוֹרֶת אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, כְּתִיב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשָּׂא פָנִים״, וּכְתִיב: ״יִשָּׂא ה׳ פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ״?

The Gemara continues: Come and hear: Beloreya the convert once asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah: “The great, mighty, and awesome God who favors no one” (Deuteronomy 10:17), and elsewhere it is written: “The Lord shall show favor to you and give you peace” (Numbers 6: 26). How can this contradiction be resolved?

נִטְפַּל לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן. אָמַר לָהּ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לָךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה — לְאָדָם שֶׁנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה וְקָבַע לוֹ זְמַן בִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ בְּחַיֵּי הַמֶּלֶךְ, הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא פְּרָעוֹ. בָּא לְפַיֵּיס אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: עֶלְבּוֹנִי מָחוּל לָךְ, לֵךְ וּפַיֵּיס אֶת חֲבֵירְךָ. הָכָא נָמֵי, כָּאן בַּעֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לְמָקוֹם — כָּאן בַּעֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ.

Rabbi Yosei the priest joined the conversation with her and said: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To a person who lent his friend one hundred dinars and fixed a time for repayment of the loan before the king, and the borrower took an oath by the life of the king that he would repay the money. The time arrived, and he did not repay the loan. The delinquent borrower came to appease the king for not fulfilling the oath that he had sworn by the life of the king, and the king said to him: For my insult I forgive you, but you must still go and appease your friend. Here also the same is true: Here, the verse that states: “The Lord shall show favor to you,” is referring to sins committed between man and God, which God will forgive; there, the verse that states: “God favors no one,” is referring to sins committed between a person and another, which God will not forgive until the offender appeases the one he hurt.

עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִימֵּד:

This is how the contradiction had at first been resolved, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught as follows:

כָּאן קוֹדֶם גְּזַר דִּין, כָּאן לְאַחַר גְּזַר דִּין! הָכָא נָמֵי בְּיָחִיד.

Here the verse is referring to the time before one’s sentence is issued, when God shows favor and forgives; and there the verse is referring to the time after the sentence has been issued, when He no longer forgives. This implies that after a sentence has been issued, there is no possibility of repentance, which seems to contradict the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara answers: Here too it is referring to an individual, but a community is granted forgiveness even after its sentence has been issued.

וּגְזַר דִּין דְּיָחִיד תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעָלוּ לַמִּטָּה וְחוֹלְיָין שָׁוֶה, וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעָלוּ לַגַּרְדּוֹם לִידּוֹן וְדִינָן שָׁוֶה. זֶה יָרַד וְזֶה לֹא יָרַד, זֶה נִיצַּל וְזֶה לֹא נִיצַּל.

§ The question of whether or not an individual’s sentence can be rescinded is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: Two people take to their beds, and their illness is the same, or two people ascend to the tribunal [gardom] for judgment, and their potential sentence is the same; but this one comes down from his bed, while that one does not come down from his bed, and this one is saved from death, while that one is not saved.

מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה יָרַד וְזֶה לֹא יָרַד, זֶה נִיצַּל וְזֶה לֹא נִיצַּל? זֶה הִתְפַּלֵּל וְנַעֲנָה, וְזֶה הִתְפַּלֵּל וְלֹא נַעֲנָה. מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה נַעֲנָה וְזֶה לֹא נַעֲנָה? זֶה הִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה שְׁלֵימָה — נַעֲנָה, וְזֶה לֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה שְׁלֵימָה — לֹא נַעֲנָה

For what reason did this one recover and come down from his bed, while that one did not recover and come down from his bed; and why was this one saved from death, while that one was not saved? The difference between them is that this one prayed and was answered, while that one prayed, but was not answered. And for what reason was this one answered and that one not answered? This one prayed a prayer with his whole heart and consequently was answered, while that one did not pray a prayer with his whole heart and therefore was not answered.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: כָּאן קוֹדֶם גְּזַר דִּין, כָּאן לְאַחַר גְּזַר דִּין. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר: יָפָה צְעָקָה לָאָדָם בֵּין קוֹדֶם גְּזַר דִּין בֵּין לְאַחַר גְּזַר דִּין.

Rabbi Elazar said: Not so; rather, here he prayed before his heavenly sentence was issued, and so he was answered, whereas there the other one prayed after his heavenly sentence was issued, and therefore he was not answered. Rabbi Yitzḥak disagreed and said: Crying out to God is effective for a person, both before his sentence has been issued and also after his sentence has been issued, as even after his sentence has been issued, it can still be rescinded if he repents.

וּגְזַר דִּין דְּצִבּוּר מִי מִיקְּרַע? וְהָא כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כַּבְּסִי מֵרָעָה לִבֵּךְ״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אִם תְּכַבְּסִי בַּנֶּתֶר וְתַרְבִּי לָךְ בּוֹרִית נִכְתָּם עֲוֹנֵךְ לְפָנַי״, מַאי לָאו: כָּאן קוֹדֶם גְּזַר דִּין, כָּאן לְאַחַר גְּזַר דִּין!

The Gemara asks: Can a sentence of a community really be torn up because they have repented? But one verse says: “O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be saved” (Jeremiah 4:14), and elsewhere it is written: “For though you wash yourself with lye, and use much soap, yet the stain of your iniquity is before Me, says the Lord God” (Jeremiah 2:22). What, is it not that here the verse is referring to the time before the sentence, when the heart can still be washed with repentance, whereas there the verse is referring to the time after the sentence, when washing no longer helps, as the sentence cannot be canceled?

לָא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לְאַחַר גְּזַר דִּין, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּגְזַר דִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה, כָּאן בִּגְזַר דִּין שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה.

The Gemara answers: No, both this verse and that verse refer to the time after the sentence has been decreed, and still it is not difficult: Here the verse is referring to a sentence accompanied by an oath taken by God not to cancel the sentence, whereas there the verse is referring to a sentence that is not accompanied by God’s oath not to cancel the sentence, and so the sentence can in fact be canceled through repentance.

כִּדְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַמֵּי. דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַמֵּי. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַב יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן לִגְזַר דִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמּוֹ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִקְרָע — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״[וְ]לָכֵן נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְבֵית עֵלִי אִם יִתְכַּפֵּר עֲוֹן בֵּית עֵלִי בְּזֶבַח וּבְמִנְחָה״.

This is like what Rav Shmuel bar Ami said, as Rav Shmuel bar Ami said, and some say that it was Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani who said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that a sentence accompanied by God’s oath not to cancel it cannot be torn up or canceled? As it is stated: “And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house will not be purged with sacrifice nor offering forever” (I Samuel 3:14).

אָמַר רָבָא: בְּזֶבַח וּבַמִּנְחָה אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר — אֲבָל מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּתוֹרָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּזֶבַח וּמִנְחָה אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר — אֲבָל מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. רַבָּה וְאַבָּיֵי מִדְּבֵית עֵלִי קָאָתוּ. רַבָּה דַּעֲסַק בַּתּוֹרָה — חֲיָה אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, אַבָּיֵי דַּעֲסַק בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — חֲיָה שִׁיתִּין שְׁנִין.

With regard to this verse Rava said: With sacrifice or offering the sin of Eli’s house is not atoned, but it can be atoned through Torah study. Abaye said: With sacrifice or offering the sin of Eli’s house is not atoned, but it is atoned through Torah study and the performance of acts of kindness. It is related that Rabba and Abaye came from the house of Eli, which was subject to the curse that most of its members would die young. Rabba, who engaged almost exclusively in Torah study, lived for forty years, whereas Abaye, who engaged in both Torah study and in the performance of acts of kindness lived for sixty years.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִשְׁפָּחָה אַחַת הָיְתָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מֵתֶיהָ מֵתִין בְּנֵי שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. בָּאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּ אֶת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת עֵלִי אַתֶּם, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְכׇל מַרְבִּית בֵּיתְךָ יָמוּתוּ אֲנָשִׁים״ — לְכוּ וְעִסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וִחְיוּ. הָלְכוּ וְעָסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וְחָיוּ. וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפַּחַת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן עַל שְׁמוֹ.

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members used to die at the age of eighteen, and they did not know why. They came and told Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai about their situation. He said to them: Perhaps you are descended from the family of Eli, as it is written about them: “And all the increase of your house shall die young men” (I Samuel 2:33). If indeed this is so, the remedy is as follows: Go and engage in Torah study, in the merit of which you will live. They went and engaged in Torah study and lived. And people would call that family afterward by the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan in his honor.

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אִינְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: מִנַּיִין לִגְזַר דִּין שֶׁל צִבּוּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶחְתָּם. אֵינוֹ נֶחְתָּם?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״נִכְתַּם עֲוֹנֵךְ לְפָנַי״! אֶלָּא: אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁנֶּחְתָּם — נִקְרָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכׇל קׇרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו״.

Rav Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that the sentence of a community is never sealed [neḥtam]? The Gemara immediately asks: Is never sealed? But isn’t it written: “Yet the stain [nikhtam] of your iniquity is before Me” (Jeremiah 2:22), which implies that the sentence of a community is indeed sealed. Rather, one must say that the question was as follows: From where is it known with regard to the sentence of a community that although it is sealed, it can still be torn up? As it is stated: “As is the Lord our God whenever we call out to Him” (Deuteronomy 4:7). This implies that there is always a way to draw close to God.

וְהָכְתִיב: ״דִּרְשׁוּ ה׳ בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ״! הָתָם בְּיָחִיד, הָכָא בְּצִבּוּר.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him when He is near” (Isaiah 55:6), which implies that there are times when He is not near and does not answer. The Gemara answers: There the verse is referring to an individual, to whom God is near only at certain times; here the verse is referring to a community, to which God is close whenever the people call out to Him.

בְּיָחִיד, אֵימַת? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵלּוּ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים שֶׁבֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. ״וַיְהִי כַּעֲשֶׂרֶת הַיָּמִים וַיִּגֹּף ה׳ אֶת נָבָל״ — עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּנֶגֶד עֶשֶׂר לְגִימוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן נָבָל לְעַבְדֵי דָּוִד. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵלּוּ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים שֶׁבֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.

§ The Gemara asks: With regard to an individual, when is God near to him? Rabba bar Avuh said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks further: The verse states: “And it came to pass about ten days after that the Lord smote Nabal, and he died” (I Samuel 25:38). These ten days, what are they doing here, i.e., why was there a delay of ten days before Nabal died? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They correspond to the ten meals that Nabal gave the servants of David who came to visit him, as out of politeness he allowed David’s ten servants to eat, and therefore his punishment was delayed for ten days. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, during which everyone is given one last opportunity to repent for the sins he committed over the course of the previous year.

בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה כׇּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם עוֹבְרִין לְפָנָיו כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן. מַאי ״כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: כִּבְנֵי אִמְּרָנָא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּמַעֲלוֹת בֵּית מָרוֹן. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כַּחֲיָילוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית דָּוִד.

§ The mishna teaches: On Rosh HaShana all creatures pass before Him like benei maron. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase benei maron? The Gemara answers: Here in Babylonia they interpreted it to mean: Like a flock of sheep [kivnei imarna]. Reish Lakish disagreed and said: Like the ascent of Beit Maron, which was very steep; one standing at the summit could discern all those climbing the mountain with a single look. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said another opinion: Like the soldiers of the house of King David, who could be surveyed with a single glance.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכוּלָּן נִסְקָרִין בִּסְקִירָה אַחַת. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״הַיּוֹצֵר יַחַד לִבָּם הַמֵּבִין אֶל כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם״. מַאי קָאָמַר? אִילֵּימָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: דִּבְרַנְהוּ לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וּמְיַיחֵד לִבַּיְיהוּ כַּהֲדָדָי — וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּלָאו הָכִי הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו, הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַיּוֹצֵר רוֹאֶה יַחַד לִבָּם וּמֵבִין אֶל כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And they are all scanned in a single scan. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, learn this in the baraita: The verse states: “He who fashions their hearts alike, who considers all their deeds” (Psalms 33:15). What is this verse saying? If we say this is what it is saying: That He created everyone and unites all their hearts together, there is a difficulty, since don’t we see that it is not so, as the hearts of people are not united and are not similar to one another? Rather, is this not what it is saying: The Creator sees their hearts together and considers all their deeds with a single scan?

מַתְנִי׳ עַל שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים הַשְּׁלוּחִין יוֹצְאִין: עַל נִיסָן מִפְּנֵי הַפֶּסַח, עַל אָב מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲנִית, עַל אֱלוּל מִפְּנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, עַל תִּשְׁרֵי מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, עַל כִּסְלֵיו מִפְּנֵי חֲנוּכָּה, וְעַל אֲדָר מִפְּנֵי הַפּוּרִים.

MISHNA: In six months of the year the messengers go out from the court in Jerusalem to report throughout Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora which day was established as the New Moon, the thirtieth or the thirty-first day since the previous New Moon. They go out in the month of Nisan, due to Passover, so that people will know on which day to celebrate it; in the month of Av, due to the fast of the Ninth of Av; in Elul, due to Rosh HaShana, which begins thirty days after the New Moon of Elul; in Tishrei, due to the need to establish the correct dates on which to celebrate the Festivals of Tishrei, i.e., Yom Kippur and Sukkot; in Kislev, due to Hanukkah; and in Adar, due to Purim.

וּכְשֶׁהָיָה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — יוֹצְאִין אַף עַל אִיָּיר מִפְּנֵי פֶּסַח קָטָן.

And when the Temple was standing, messengers would also go out in the month of Iyyar due to small Passover, i.e., second Pesaḥ, which occurs on the fourteenth of Iyyar. This holiday allowed those who were ritually impure or on a distant journey on the fourteenth of Nisan, and therefore incapable of bringing the Paschal lamb at that time, to bring their Paschal lamb a month later.

גְּמָ׳ וְלִיפְּקוּ נָמֵי אַתַּמּוּז וְטֵבֵת!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And if they go out for the month of Av due to the fast, let them go out also in the months of Tammuz and Tevet, as they too contain public fast days.

דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ צְבָאוֹת צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְצוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי וְצוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְצוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵית יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה״. קָרֵי לְהוּ ״צוֹם״, וְקָרֵי לְהוּ ״שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה״! בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם — יִהְיוּ לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, אֵין שָׁלוֹם — צוֹם.

As Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Thus said the Lord of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall become times of joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons, to the house of Judah” (Zechariah 8:19). It calls them days of “fast” and it calls them “times of joy and gladness.” How so? When there is peace in the world, they will be times of joy and gladness, on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when there is no peace, they are days of fasting. In a time when there is no peace, why are messengers not sent out also for the fourth and tenth months, so that people can know when to observe the fasts?

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם — יִהְיוּ לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, יֵשׁ שְׁמָד — צוֹם, אֵין שְׁמָד וְאֵין שָׁלוֹם — רָצוּ מִתְעַנִּין, רָצוּ אֵין מִתְעַנִּין.

Rav Pappa said that this is what it is saying: When there is peace in the world and the Temple is standing, these days will be times of joy and gladness; when there is persecution and troubles for the Jewish people, they are days of fasting; and when there is no persecution but still no peace, neither particular troubles nor consolation for Israel, the halakha is as follows: If people wish, they fast, and if they wish, they do not fast. Since there is no absolute obligation to fast, messengers are not sent out for these months.

אִי הָכִי, תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב נָמֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב, הוֹאִיל וְהוּכְפְּלוּ בּוֹ צָרוֹת. דְּאָמַר מָר: בְּתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב חָרַב הַבַּיִת בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁנִיָּה, וְנִלְכְּדָה בֵּיתָר, וְנֶחֶרְשָׁה הָעִיר.

The Gemara asks: If so, the Ninth of Av should also be like the other fast days, that sometimes it is observed and sometimes not, depending upon the wishes of the community at the time. Why does the mishna state that messengers go out for the month of Av? Rav Pappa said: The Ninth of Av is different, since the calamities that occurred on that day were multiplied. As the Master said: On the Ninth of Av the Temple was destroyed, both the first one and the second one; on this day the city of Beitar was captured; and on this day the city of Jerusalem was plowed over by the enemies of the Jewish people, as a sign that it would never be rebuilt. Consequently, the fast of the Ninth of Av is obligatory, and not optional like the other fasts. Messengers are consequently sent out so that people will know when to fast.

תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דּוֹרֵשׁ, וַאֲנִי אֵין דּוֹרֵשׁ כְּמוֹתוֹ: ״צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי״ — זֶה תִּשְׁעָה בְּתַמּוּז שֶׁבּוֹ הוּבְקְעָה הָעִיר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּרְבִיעִי בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ וַיֶּחֱזַק הָרָעָב בָּעִיר וְלֹא הָיָה לֶחֶם לְעַם הָאָרֶץ וַתִּבָּקַע הָעִיר״. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״רְבִיעִי״ — רְבִיעִי לֶחֳדָשִׁים.

§ The Sages disagreed about the fasts alluded to in the words of the prophet, as it is taught in a baraita. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiva would expound four verses, but I would not expound the texts as he did. One of the disputes relates to the fasts mentioned by Zechariah. Rabbi Akiva would expound the verse as follows: “The fast of the fourth,” this is the ninth of Tammuz, on which the city of Jerusalem was breached, as it is stated: “And in the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, the famine was severe in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land. Then the city was breached” (Jeremiah 52:6–7). And why does the prophet call it the fast of the fourth? Because it is in Tammuz, the fourth of the months when counting from Nisan.

״צוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי״ — זֶה תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב, שֶׁבּוֹ נִשְׂרַף בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״חֲמִישִׁי״ — חֲמִישִׁי לֶחֳדָשִׁים. צוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי — זֶה שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּתִשְׁרִי, שֶׁבּוֹ נֶהֱרַג גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן אֲחִיקָם. וּמִי הֲרָגוֹ — יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן נְתַנְיָה הֲרָגוֹ, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁשְּׁקוּלָה מִיתָתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים כִּשְׂרֵיפַת בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״שְׁבִיעִי״ — שְׁבִיעִי לֶחֳדָשִׁים.

“The fast of the fifth,” this is the Ninth of Av, on which the Temple of our Lord was burnt. And why does he call it the fast of the fifth? Because it falls in the fifth of the months. “The fast of the seventh,” this is the third of Tishrei, on which Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed. And who killed him? Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, killed him (see II Kings 25:25; Jeremiah, chapter 41). The Sages established a fast to commemorate Gedaliah’s death to teach you that the death of the righteous is equivalent to the burning of the Temple of our Lord. And why did the prophet call it the fast of the seventh? Because Tishrei is the seventh of the months.

״צוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי״ — זֶה עֲשָׂרָה בְּטֵבֵת, שֶׁבּוֹ סָמַךְ מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי דְבַר ה׳ אֵלַי בַּשָּׁנָה הַתְּשִׁיעִית בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂירִי בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ לֵאמֹר. בֶּן אָדָם כְּתׇב לְךָ אֶת שֵׁם הַיּוֹם אֶת עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה סָמַךְ מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל אֶל יְרוּשָׁלִַים״. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״עֲשִׂירִי״ — עֲשִׂירִי לֶחֳדָשִׁים. וַהֲלֹא הָיָה רָאוּי זֶה לִכְתּוֹב רִאשׁוֹן? וְלָמָּה נִכְתַּב כָּאן — כְּדֵי לְהַסְדִּיר חֳדָשִׁים כְּתִיקְנָן.

“The fast of the tenth,” This is the tenth of Tevet, on which the king of Babylonia laid siege to Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, write the name of the day, of this same day: The king of Babylonia has laid siege to Jerusalem on this very day” (Ezekiel 24:1–2). And why did he call it the fast of the tenth? Because it is in Tevet, which is the tenth of the months. Wouldn’t it have been fitting to write this fast first, as the series of events began with the laying of the siege. Why was it written here at the end of the list? This was done in order to list the months in their proper order, as the prophet began with the fourth month and ended with the tenth month. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

וַאֲנִי אֵינִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא: ״צוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי״ — זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה בְּטֵבֵת, שֶׁבּוֹ בָּאת שְׁמוּעָה לַגּוֹלָה שֶׁהוּכְּתָה הָעִיר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בִּשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בָּעֲשִׂירִי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה לַחֹדֶשׁ לְגָלוּתֵנוּ בָּא אֵלַי הַפָּלִיט מִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר הוּכְּתָה הָעִיר״, וְעָשׂוּ יוֹם שְׁמוּעָה כְּיוֹם שְׂרֵיפָה.

Rabbi Shimon disagreed and said: I do not say this, but rather I expound the verse as follows: “The fast of the tenth,” this is the fifth of Tevet, on which the report reached the Diaspora that the city had been smitten, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our exile, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month, that one that had escaped out of Jerusalem came to me, saying: The city is smitten” (Ezekiel 33:21); and they made the day of the report of the destruction like the day of the actual burning and decreed a fast on that day.

וְנִרְאִין דְּבָרַי מִדְּבָרָיו, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר עַל רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וְעַל אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר עַל רִאשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן וְעַל אַחֲרוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא מוֹנֶה לְסֵדֶר חֳדָשִׁים, וַאֲנִי מוֹנֶה לְסֵדֶר פּוּרְעָנִיּוֹת.

And Rabbi Shimon added: And my statement seems more convincing than his statement, as I say about the first fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place first, and about the last fast that it marks the event that took place last. According to Rabbi Shimon, the fasts are listed in accordance with the chronological order of the events. But he, Rabbi Akiva, says about the first fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place last, and about the last fast mentioned that it marks the event that took place first, only that he lists the fasts in the order of the months, whereas I list them also in the order of the calamities that they mark.

אִיתְּמַר, רַב וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרִי: בָּטְלָה מְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמְרִי: לֹא בָּטְלָה מְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית.

§ It was stated that the Sages disagreed about the following matter: Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say: Megillat Ta’anit, a listing of days on which fasting and eulogizing are forbidden, has been nullified, as in the present period of exile there is no reason to celebrate the joyous events that these days commemorate. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: Megillat Ta’anit has not been nullified.

רַב וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרִי בָּטְלָה מְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם — יִהְיוּ לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, אֵין שָׁלוֹם — צוֹם. וְהָנָךְ נָמֵי כִּי הָנֵי.

The Gemara explains: Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina say that Megillat Ta’anit has been nullified. This is what the prophet is saying: At a time when there is peace in the world, the dates listed will be times of joy and gladness, on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when there is no peace, they are days of fasting. And those days mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit are also like these days of fasting, that is to say, the days of joy listed in Megillat Ta’anit are also nullified when there is no peace.

רַב וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמְרִי: לֹא בָּטְלָה מְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית — הָנֵי הוּא דִּתְלִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בְּבִנְיַן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל הָנָךְ — כִּדְקָיְימִי קָיְימִי.

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say that Megillat Ta’anit has not been nullified, and they reason as follows: It was those fast days mentioned in the Bible that the Merciful One makes contingent on the building of the Temple, but these festive days listed in Megillat Ta’anit remain as they were and have not been nullified.

מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַעֲשֶׂה וְגָזְרוּ תַּעֲנִית בַּחֲנוּכָּה בְּלוֹד, וְיָרַד רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרָחַץ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְסִיפֵּר. וְאָמְרוּ לָהֶם: צְאוּ וְהִתְעַנּוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁהִתְעַנִּיתֶם.

Rav Kahana raised an objection against Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina from a baraita: There was an incident and the Sages decreed a fast on Hanukkah in Lod, and Rabbi Eliezer went down on that day and bathed in the bathhouse and Rabbi Yehoshua went down and cut his hair to show that they did not accept the fast. Furthermore, these two Sages said to the others: Go out and fast another fast as an act of penitence for what you have already fasted, as the days of Hanukkah are days of joy, on which fasting is forbidden. Hanukkah is one of the Festivals listed in Megillat Ta’anit. Even after the destruction of the Temple Hanukkah is celebrated, demonstrating that Megillat Ta’anit has not been nullified.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁאנֵי חֲנוּכָּה דְּאִיכָּא מִצְוָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְתִיבְטַיל אִיהִי וְתִיבְטַל מִצְוָתָהּ!

Rav Yosef said: Hanukkah is different, as there is the mitzva of lighting candles, and so, unlike the other days listed in Megillat Ta’anit, the festival of Hanukkah was not nullified. Abaye said to him: What is this argument? Let Hanukkah itself be nullified, and let its mitzva of lighting candles be nullified with it.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, שָׁאנֵי חֲנוּכָּה דְּמִיפַּרְסַם נִיסָּא.

Rather, Rav Yosef retracted his previous explanation and said: Hanukkah is different, as its miracle is well known, and it has become so widely accepted by all the Jewish people that it would be inappropriate to nullify it.

מוֹתֵיב רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא: בִּתְלָתָא בְּתִשְׁרִי בְּטֵילַת אַדְכָּרְתָּא מִן שְׁטָרַיָּיא. שֶׁגָּזְרָה מַלְכוּת יָוָן גְּזֵרָה שֶׁלֹּא לְהַזְכִּיר שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם עַל פִּיהֶם, וּכְשֶׁגָּבְרָה מַלְכוּת חַשְׁמוֹנַאי וְנִצְּחוּם הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַזְכִּירִין שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁטָרוֹת. וְכָךְ הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִים: בִּשְׁנַת כָּךְ וְכָךְ לְיוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן.

Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection: It is stated in Megillat Ta’anit: On the third of Tishrei the ordinance requiring the mention of God’s name in legal documents was abolished, and on that day fasting is forbidden. For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree against the Jews forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips. When the Hasmonean kingdom became strong and defeated the Greeks, they instituted that people should mention the name of Heaven even in their legal documents. And therefore they would write: In year such and such of Yoḥanan the High Priest of the God Most High.

וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: לְמָחָר זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ אֶת חוֹבוֹ וְנִמְצָא שְׁטָר מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וּבִיטְּלוּם, וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם עֲשָׂאוּהוּ יוֹם טוֹב. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בָּטְלָה מְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית — קַמָּיָיתָא בְּטוּל, אַחְרָנְיָיתָא מוֹסִיפִין?!

And when the Sages heard about this they said: Tomorrow this one, the borrower, will repay his debt, the lender will no longer need to save the loan document, the document will be cast on a dunghill, and the name of Heaven written there will come to disgrace. And so they annulled the ordinance to mention God’s name in documents, and they made that day into a Festival. And if it enters your mind to say that Megillat Ta’anit has been nullified, can you say that the first prohibitions against fasting they annulled, and then later ones were added?

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is referring to a time when the Temple was standing and all the days listed in Megillat Ta’anit were in force. From time to time new days of commemoration were added. When the amora’im stated that Megillat Ta’anit was nullified they were referring to the time after the destruction of the Temple.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן אֲחִיקָם! אָמַר רַב: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לֶאֱסוֹר אֶת שֶׁלְּפָנָיו.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if this was at the time that the Temple was standing, derive the prohibition against fasting on the third of Tishrei from the fact that it is the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed. During the time of the Temple the biblical fast days were celebrated as days of joy. Rav said: It was only necessary to include the third of Tishrei in Megillat Ta’anit in order to prohibit fasting on the preceding day as well. Fasting was forbidden not only on the actual days listed in Megillat Ta’anit, but also on the preceding day and the following day.

שֶׁלְּפָנָיו נָמֵי, תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחַר רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ! רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא בָּעֵי חִיזּוּק.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: With regard to the prohibition against fasting on the preceding day, the second of Tishrei, also derive it because it is the day after the New Moon, and fasting is forbidden not only on festive days, but also on the preceding day and the following day. The Gemara rejects this argument: The New Moon is by Torah law, and festive days that are by Torah law do not require reinforcement. Therefore no decree was ever enacted prohibiting fasting on the days before and after.

דְּתַנְיָא: הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה הַכְּתוּבִין בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית אֲסוּרִין, בֵּין לִפְנֵיהֶם בֵּין לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם. שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים — הֵם אֲסוּרִים, לִפְנֵיהֶן וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין. מָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? הַלָּלוּ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְאֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק. הַלָּלוּ דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, וְדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק.

As it is taught in a baraita: These days that are written in Megillat Ta’anit are days on which fasting is prohibited, as are both the day before them and the day after them. With regard to Shabbatot and Festivals, fasting on them is forbidden, but on the day before them and the day after them fasting is permitted. What is the difference between this class of days and that class of days? These days, Shabbatot and Festivals, are by Torah law, and Torah laws do not need reinforcement, and therefore even if a fast day were decreed on the day before or after them, the Festival itself would not be nullified; whereas those days mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit are by rabbinic law, and rabbinic laws need reinforcement, and therefore fasting is prohibited even on the day before and the day after.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם שֶׁלִּפְנֵי יוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן אֲחִיקָם! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן אֲחִיקָם דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה הוּא, וְדִבְרֵי קַבָּלָה כְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה דָּמוּ.

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: The prohibition against fasting on the second of Tishrei, derive it from the fact that it is the day before the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed, and since in Temple times the fast of Gedaliah was celebrated as a festive day, fasting should also be prohibited on the preceding day. Rav Ashi said: The fast of Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, is derived from the texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings, and as the texts of the tradition are treated like Torah statements for this purpose, they too do not need reinforcement.

מֵתִיב רַב טוֹבִי בַּר מַתְנָה: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּתְמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ אֲתָת בְּשׂוֹרְתָּא טָבְתָּא לִיהוּדָאֵי דְּלָא יְעִידוֹן מֵאוֹרָיְיתָא. שֶׁגָּזְרָה מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה גְּזֵרָה שֶׁלֹּא יַעַסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא יָמוּלוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם, וְשֶׁיְּחַלְּלוּ שַׁבָּתוֹת. מָה עָשָׂה יְהוּדָה בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ וַחֲבֵירָיו? הָלְכוּ וְנָטְלוּ עֵצָה מִמַּטְרוֹנִיתָא אַחַת שֶׁכׇּל גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי מְצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ.

Rav Tovi bar Mattana raised an objection against the opinion that Megillat Ta’anit was nullified, from that which is written in it: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good tidings came to the Jews that they should not turn away from the Torah, and on that day fasting is forbidden. And this is explained: For the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that they should not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and took advice from a certain matron [matronita] whom all the prominent men of Rome would visit regularly, thinking that she would know how to annul the decree.

אָמְרָה לָהֶם: בּוֹאוּ וְהַפְגִּינוּ בַּלַּיְלָה. הָלְכוּ וְהִפְגִּינוּ בַּלַּיְלָה, אָמְרוּ: אֵי שָׁמַיִם! לֹא אֲחֵיכֶם אֲנַחְנוּ, וְלֹא בְּנֵי אָב אֶחָד אֲנַחְנוּ, וְלֹא בְּנֵי אֵם אַחַת אֲנַחְנוּ? מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּינוּ מִכׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁאַתֶּם גּוֹזְרִין עָלֵינוּ גְּזֵירוֹת קָשׁוֹת? וּבִיטְּלוּם. וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם עֲשָׂאוּהוּ יוֹם טוֹב. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בָּטְלָה מְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית — קַמָּיָיתָא בְּטוּל, אַחְרָנְיָיתָא מוֹסִיפִין?!

She said to them as follows: Come and cry out [hafgginu] at night in the streets and markets. They went and cried out at night, saying: O Heavens! Are we Jews not your brothers; are we not children of one father; are we not children of one mother? How are we different from every other nation and tongue that you issue such harsh decrees against us? And indeed the decrees were annulled, and the Sages made that day a festive day. And if it enters your mind to say that Megillat Ta’anit has been nullified, can you say that the first prohibitions against fasting they annulled, and then later ones were added?

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — וְהָא יְהוּדָה בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בָּתַר הָכִי הֲוָה! דִּתְנַן: כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ וְהִטִּיף לְתוֹכָן אֲבָר, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: יְהוּדָה בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר,

And if you say that here too it is referring to the time when the Temple was standing, there is a difficulty, as Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir was after the destruction of the Temple. And proof that Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir may be brought, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to glass vessels that had holes in them, which afterward were filled in with lead, the Sages dispute whether the utensil is considered a whole utensil, which can become ritually impure, or whether it is considered a broken utensil, which does not. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Yehuda ben Shammua declares that it becomes impure, in the name of Rabbi Meir;

וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין.

whereas the Sages declare it pure. According to them, it is still considered a broken utensil. Rabbi Meir himself lived after the destruction of the Second Temple. The festive day commemorating the annulling of the decree of Rome was instituted as a result of an incident involving his student, Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua. From this, it is clear that Megillat Ta’anit had not yet been nullified.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הַיָּמִים הָאֵלּוּ הַכְּתוּבִין בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית, בֵּין בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים בֵּין בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — אֲסוּרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — אֲסוּרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׂמְחָה הִיא לָהֶם. אֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — מוּתָּרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵבֶל הוּא לָהֶם.

The Gemara answers: The question whether or not Megillat Ta’anit has been nullified is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: These days, which are written in Megillat Ta’anit, both when the Temple is standing and when the Temple is not standing, are days on which fasting is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: When the Temple is standing, these days are prohibited for fasting because these days are a source of joy for Israel. But when the Temple is not standing, these days are permitted for fasting because these days are a source of mourning for them.

וְהִלְכְתָא בָּטְלוּ, וְהִלְכְתָא לֹא בָּטְלוּ. קַשְׁיָא הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּחֲנוּכָּה וּפוּרִים, כָּאן בִּשְׁאָר יוֹמֵי.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that these days were nullified, and the halakha is that they were not nullified. The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as one halakha contradicts the other halakha. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, it is referring to Hanukkah and Purim. These Festival days were never nullified, and Hanukkah is listed among the Festivals of Megillat Ta’anit. There, the halakha is referring to the rest of the days listed in Megillat Ta’anit, all of which were nullified.

עַל אֱלוּל מִפְּנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וְעַל תִּשְׁרִי מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת. כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ אַאֱלוּל, אַתִּשְׁרִי לְמָה לְהוּ?

§ The mishna taught: Messengers go out to inform about the sanctification of the New Moon in Elul, due to Rosh HaShana, and in Tishrei, due to the need to establish the correct dates on which to celebrate the Festivals of Tishrei. The Gemara asks: Once the messengers have gone out in the month of Elul to inform the people when the New Moon was declared, why do they need to go out again in Tishrei, as the New Moon of Tishrei always falls on the thirtieth day after the New Moon of Elul?

וְכִי תֵּימָא דִּלְמָא עַבְּרוּהּ לֶאֱלוּל, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִינָּנָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַב: מִימוֹת עֶזְרָא וְאֵילָךְ לֹא מָצִינוּ אֱלוּל מְעוּבָּר!

And if you say that messengers must go out for Tishrei as well, as perhaps the court added another day to the month of Elul, so that Rosh HaShana occurs on the thirty-first day after the New Moon of Elul, there is a difficulty. Didn’t Rabbi Ḥinnana bar Kahana say that Rav said: From the days of Ezra and onward, we have never found that the month of Elul had an additional day. Consequently, it is simple to calculate the days on which the Festivals of Tishrei occur, and there should be no need to send out messengers in Tishrei.

לֹא מָצִינוּ — דְּלָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ, הָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ — מְעַבְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: When we say: We have not found that the month of Elul ever had an additional day, this does not mean that Elul cannot have an additional day, but only that it never happened because it was not necessary to add a day. But if it had been necessary, they would have added an additional day. Since it is possible that the month of Elul could have had another day added, there is reason to send out messengers for the month of Tishrei, so that all will know when to celebrate the Festivals.

הָא מִיקַּלְקַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה! מוּטָב תִּיקַּלְקֵל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְלֹא יִתְקַלְקְלוּ כּוּלְּהוּ מוֹעֲדוֹת.

The Gemara asks: But if Elul has an additional day Rosh HaShana will be ruined, because people will celebrate it thirty days after the New Moon of Elul, when its real date is on the thirty-first day. The Gemara answers: Better that Rosh HaShana be ruined, and all the Festivals, i.e., Yom Kippur, Sukkot, and the Eighth Day of Assembly, not be ruined.

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: עַל תִּשְׁרִי מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Messengers go out in the month of Tishrei due to the need to establish the correct dates on which to celebrate the Festivals of Tishrei. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the correct understanding.

וְעַל כִּסְלֵיו מִפְּנֵי חֲנוּכָּה, וְעַל אֲדָר מִפְּנֵי הַפּוּרִים. וְאִילּוּ נִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה יוֹצְאִין אַף עַל אֲדָר שֵׁנִי מִפְּנֵי הַפּוּרִים — לָא קָתָנֵי. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אִם נִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה — יוֹצְאִין אַף עַל אֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי מִפְּנֵי הַפּוּרִים.

§ The mishna taught: Messengers go out in Kislev, due to Hanukkah, and in Adar, due to Purim. Whereas, it is not taught: If the year was a leap year, with an additional month of Adar, the messengers go out also in the second Adar due to Purim, which is celebrated in the second Adar. This indicates that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the year was a leap year, the messengers go out also in the second Adar, due to Purim.

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַנּוֹהֲגוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי — נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַנּוֹהֲגוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי — אֵין נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹן.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this. One Sage, the author of this mishna, holds that all the mitzvot observed in the second Adar, i.e., the special Torah readings and the mitzvot of Purim, are also observed in the first Adar. If they were observed in the first Adar and not in the second, the people have fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, there is no need to send messengers in the second Adar. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that all the mitzvot observed in the second Adar are not observed in the first. It is therefore necessary to send messengers in the second Adar, so that people will know when to keep the mitzvot of Adar.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִצְוֹת הַנּוֹהֲגוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי — אֵין נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּעִיבּוּר שָׁנָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה עִיבּוּר שָׁנָה — שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: חֹדֶשׁ.

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone agrees that the mitzvot observed in the second Adar are not observed on the first, and here they disagree about the length of the additional month in the leap year, as it is taught in a baraita: How long is the additional month in a leap year? Thirty days. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A month. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and since the additional month does not have a fixed number of days, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar, so that people will know when to celebrate Purim. However, according to the first tanna, since the first Adar is always a fixed length, there is no need to send messengers.

מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁלֹשִׁים — דְּיָדְעִי? חֹדֶשׁ נָמֵי יָדְעִי! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאן דְּאָמַר חֹדֶשׁ, רָצָה — חֹדֶשׁ, רָצָה — שְׁלֹשִׁים.

The Gemara asks: What is different about thirty days? It is different because people can count thirty days and know when the month ends and when Purim occurs. A month also, people know the length of it. The term month implies that it is a month of twenty-nine days, and based on that they know when to celebrate Purim. Rav Pappa said: The one who said that a month is added does not mean necessarily a month of twenty-nine days. Rather, if the judges of the court wish, they add a month of twenty-nine days; and if it wishes, they add thirty days. Therefore, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar.

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם קְהָלָא קַדִּישָׁא דִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עַל שְׁנֵי אֲדָרִים שֶׁמְּקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתָם בְּיוֹם עִיבּוּרֵיהֶן.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi testified in the name of the holy community of Jerusalem about the two months of Adar, that they are sanctified on the day that could have been added to make them a full month, i.e., the thirtieth day after the previous New Moon. That is to say, the thirtieth day after the New Moon of the first Adar is always the New Moon of the second Adar, and thirty days after the New Moon of the second Adar is always the New Moon of Nisan.

לְמֵימְרָא דַּחֲסֵרִין עָבְדִינַן, מְלֵאִין לָא עָבְדִינַן! לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּדָרֵשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר חִסְדָּא. הֵעִיד רַבִּי סִימַאי מִשּׁוּם חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי עַל שְׁנֵי אֲדָרִים, שֶׁאִם רָצוּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן שְׁנֵיהֶן מְלֵאִין — עוֹשִׂין, שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲסֵרִין — עוֹשִׂין, אֶחָד מָלֵא וְאֶחָד חָסֵר — עוֹשִׂין, וְכָךְ הָיוּ נוֹהֲגִין בַּגּוֹלָה. וּמִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ אָמְרוּ: לְעוֹלָם אֶחָד מָלֵא וְאֶחָד חָסֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּוּוֹדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּקְבַּע רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ.

The Gemara comments: That is to say that they make the two months of Adar short months, of twenty-nine days, but they do not make them full months, of thirty days. This is to the exclusion of what Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda taught, as Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda taught: Rabbi Simai testified in the name of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi about two months of Adar in a leap year, that if the members of the court wish to make them both full, they may do so; and if they wish to make them both short, they may do so; and if they wish to make one full and one short, they may do so. And this is what they would do in the Diaspora, when they did not know which day was established as the New Moon. And in the name of our teacher, Rav, they said: The two months of Adar are always observed, one full and one short, unless it is known to you that the New Moon was fixed in its proper time, i.e., the first Adar is also short.

שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ לְמָר עוּקְבָא: אֲדָר הַסָּמוּךְ לְנִיסָן — לְעוֹלָם חָסֵר.

A ruling was sent from Eretz Yisrael to Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia: The Adar that immediately precedes Nisan is always short, both in a regular year and in a leap year. But the first Adar in a leap year, which does not immediately precede Nisan, is sometimes full.

מֵתִיב רַב נַחְמָן: עַל שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים מְחַלְּלִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת — עַל נִיסָן וְעַל תִּשְׁרִי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא זִמְנִין מָלֵא זִמְנִין חָסֵר — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְחַלְּלִינַן.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection from what was taught in a mishna: Witnesses who saw the new moon may desecrate Shabbat for the fixing of the New Moon of two months, for the month of Nisan and for the month of Tishrei, due to the important Festivals that occur in them. Granted, if you say that the Adar immediately preceding Nisan is sometimes full and sometimes short, due to that reason the witnesses may desecrate Shabbat, as if the witnesses come on the thirtieth, the month will be made short and that day will be declared the New Moon; otherwise, the month will be made full and the next day will be declared the New Moon.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְעוֹלָם חָסֵר, אַמַּאי מְחַלְּלִינַן? מִשּׁוּם דְּמִצְוָה לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הָרְאִיָּיה.

But if you say that the Adar immediately preceding Nisan is always short, why should they desecrate Shabbat? The court can calculate the time of the New Moon without witnesses. The Gemara answers: Because it is a mitzva to sanctify the New Moon on the basis of the testimony of witnesses who actually saw the new moon and not rely on calculations or established practices.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: עַל שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים מְחַלְּלִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת — עַל נִיסָן וְעַל תִּשְׁרִי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוֹלָם חָסֵר — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְחַלְּלִינַן, דְּמִצְוָה לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הָרְאִיָּיה.

Some say that Rav Naḥman said: We, too, learn in a mishna: Witnesses who saw the new moon may desecrate Shabbat to establish the New Moon for two months, for the month of Nisan and for the month of Tishrei. Granted, if you say that the Adar immediately preceding Nisan is always short, due to that reason the witnesses may desecrate Shabbat, because it is a mitzva to sanctify the month on the basis of the testimony of witnesses who actually saw the new moon.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ זִמְנִין מָלֵא זִמְנִין חָסֵר — אַמַּאי מְחַלְּלִינַן? נְעַבְּרֵיהּ הָאִידָּנָא, וּנְקַדְּשֵׁיהּ לִמְחַר.

But if you say that the Adar immediately preceding Nisan is sometimes full and sometimes short, and there is no regularity to it, why should the witnesses desecrate Shabbat? Have the court add an extra day to the month now, since it can decide whether the thirtieth day or the thirty-first day is the beginning of the new month, and let the members of the court sanctify the next day as the New Moon.

אִי דְּאִקְּלַע יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים בְּשַׁבָּת — הָכִי נָמֵי. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן: דְּאִקְּלַע יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת, דְּמִצְוָה לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הָרְאִיָּיה.

The Gemara rejects this argument: If the thirtieth of Adar falls on Shabbat, this is indeed what is done. The witnesses are not permitted to desecrate Shabbat. Rather, the month is made full and the next day is sanctified as the New Moon. Here we are dealing with a case where the thirty-first of Adar falls on Shabbat, and so the sanctification of the New Moon cannot be pushed off to the next day, as a month cannot be longer than thirty days. In that case, the witnesses may desecrate Shabbat because it is a mitzva to sanctify the month based on testimony of witnesses who actually saw the new moon.

מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: כְּשֶׁהַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים מְחַלְּלִין אַף עַל כּוּלָּן, מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַקׇּרְבָּן.

Rav Kahana raised an objection from the continuation of the mishna, which teaches: When the Temple was standing, the witnesses would desecrate Shabbat for establishing the New Moon even for all the months, in order to rectify the offering of the New Moon, i.e., ensure that it is at the proper time.

מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּמִצְוָה לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הָרְאִיָּיה — נִיסָן וְתִשְׁרִי נָמֵי לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּמִצְוָה לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הָרְאִיָּיה.

From the fact that the reason that the witnesses are permitted to desecrate Shabbat for all the other months is not because it is a mitzva to sanctify the month based on testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon, the implication is that with regard to Nisan and Tishrei as well, the witnesses are permitted to desecrate Shabbat for another reason and not because it is a mitzva to sanctify the month based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא זִמְנִין מָלֵא וְזִמְנִין חָסֵר, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְחַלְּלִינַן. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְעוֹלָם חָסֵר, אַמַּאי מְחַלְּלִינַן? תְּיוּבְתָּא.

Granted, if you say that Adar is sometimes full and sometimes short, due to that reason the witnesses may desecrate Shabbat. But if you say that Adar is always short, why should they desecrate Shabbat? The court knows in advance when will be the New Moon of Nisan. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation to the proof brought by Rav Naḥman.

כִּי אֲתָא עוּלָּא, אָמַר: עַבְּרוּהּ לֶאֱלוּל. אָמַר עוּלָּא: יָדְעִי חַבְרִין בַּבְלָאֵי מַאי טֵיבוּתָא עָבְדִינַן בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ!

§ It is related that when Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This year they added an extra day to the month of Elul. Ulla continued and said: Do our Babylonian colleagues understand what benefit we did for them? We pushed off Rosh HaShana for a day, so that the Festival would not occur adjacent to Shabbat.

מַאי טֵיבוּתָא? עוּלָּא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם יַרְקַיָּא. רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם מִתַיָּא.

The Gemara asks: What is the benefit in having a weekday between Shabbat and a Festival? Ulla said: Due to the vegetables that would not be picked for two days and those picked beforehand that would no longer be fresh. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: Due to the dead who would not be buried for two days and consequently would begin to decompose.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם מִתַיָּא — מְעַבְּרִינַן. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם יַרְקַיָּא, לְאֵימַת קָא בָּעֵי לְהוּ — לְאוּרְתָּא, לְאוּרְתָּא טָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two concerns? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case where Yom Kippur occurs directly after Shabbat. According to the one who said that the reason is due to the dead that would go unburied for two days, the court adds an extra day to Elul so that Yom Kippur will not occur on Sunday. But according to the one who said that the reason is due to the vegetables that would not be fresh, there is no need to add an extra day to Elul. When would he require the vegetables? Only in the evening following Yom Kippur; and if Yom Kippur falls on Sunday, he can go out in the evening after the fast and bring fresh vegetables.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם יַרְקַיָּא, לְעַבְּרֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם מִתַיָּא! אֶלָּא: אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יוֹם טוֹב הַסָּמוּךְ לַשַּׁבָּת בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ בֵּין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם יַרְקַיָּא — מְעַבְּרִינַן, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם מִתַיָּא — אֶפְשָׁר בְּעַמְמֵי.

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that the reason is due to vegetables, the court should still make Elul full due to the dead, as this is also an important consideration. Rather, the practical difference between them is with regard to the case where the Festival of Rosh HaShana occurs adjacent to Shabbat, either before it or after it. According to the one who said that the reason is due to the vegetables that would wither, the court adds an extra day to Elul. But according to the one who said that the reason is due to the dead that would go unburied, there is no reason to make Elul full, because on a Festival it is possible to arrange that the dead be buried by gentiles.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם מִתַיָּא, לְעַבְּרֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם יַרְקַיָּא! אֶפְשָׁר בְּחַמִּימֵי.

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said that the reason is due to the dead, the court should still add an extra day to Elul due to the vegetables. The Gemara answers: According to him this is not an important consideration, because it is possible to soak the withered vegetables in hot water and thereby restore their freshness.

אִי הָכִי: מַאי שְׁנָא לְדִידַן, אֲפִילּוּ לְדִידְהוּ נָמֵי! לְדִידַן חֲבִיל לַן עָלְמָא, לְדִידְהוּ לָא חֲבִיל לְהוּ עָלְמָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, what is different about those who live in Babylonia and those who live in Eretz Yisrael? Why did Ulla specifically say that adding an extra day to Elul was beneficial to us, in Babylonia; it was beneficial to them as well. The Gemara answers: For us in Babylonia the weather is very hot, and so vegetables wither and corpses decompose quickly. But for them in Eretz Yisrael, the weather is not as hot, and vegetables and corpses can be kept for two days.

אִינִי?! וְהָתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה לְצוֹרֶךְ, כָּךְ מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ לְצוֹרֶךְ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים״ — כָּזֶה רְאֵה וְקַדֵּשׁ.

§ It was taught above that for various reasons a month can have an extra day added, even if the new moon was seen on the night before the thirtieth. The Gemara challenges this assumption: Is that so? But didn’t Rabba bar Shmuel teach in a baraita: One might have thought that just as the court adds an extra month to a year for some pressing communal need, so too, the court adds an extra day to a month for some similar need. Therefore, the verse states: “This month shall be to you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2). This teaches that when there is a moon like this, see it and sanctify the month. When the new moon is seen, the month must be sanctified without delay.

אָמַר רָבָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן לְעַבְּרוֹ, כָּאן לְקַדְּשׁוֹ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה וְאֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ לְצוֹרֶךְ, כָּךְ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ לְצוֹרֶךְ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם״ — כָּזֶה רְאֵה וְקַדֵּשׁ.

Rava said: This is not difficult: Here it is speaking of adding an extra day to the month, although the new moon was seen on the thirtieth, which is permitted; whereas there it is speaking of sanctifying the month on the thirtieth, although the new moon was not yet seen, which is prohibited. And this is what the baraita is saying: One might have thought that just as the court adds to a year or a month for some pressing communal need, so too, a month can be sanctified early on the thirtieth even without seeing the new moon. Therefore, the verse states: “This month shall be to you the beginning of months,” which teaches: Only when the moon appears like this, see it and sanctify the month, but not before.

וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מְאַיְּימִין עַל הָעֵדִים עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנִּרְאָה בִּזְמַנּוֹ — לְעַבְּרוֹ, וְאֵין מְאַיְּימִין עַל הָעֵדִים עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בִּזְמַנּוֹ — לְקַדְּשׁוֹ.

The Gemara comments that this is like that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The court may intimidate witnesses through rigorous and confusing examination, so that they will give inadmissible testimony about the new moon that was seen at its due time, the thirtieth of the month. This is so that the court can add an extra day to it, and the New Moon will be sanctified on the thirty-first day. But the court may not intimidate witnesses into giving testimony about the new moon that was not seen on its due time, in order to sanctify the New Moon early, on the thirtieth.

אִינִי?! וְהָא שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁכׇּל יָמָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָיָה מְלַמְּדֵנוּ: מְאַיְּימִין עַל הָעֵדִים עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בִּזְמַנּוֹ — לְקַדְּשׁוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאוּהוּ, יֹאמְרוּ ״רָאִינוּ״!

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, who was the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, send a message to Rabbi Ami: Be aware that all the days of Rabbi Yoḥanan he would teach us that witnesses may be intimidated into giving testimony about the new moon that was not seen in its due time. This was done in order that the new month may be sanctified early, already on the thirtieth. Although the witnesses did not see the moon, they may say: We saw it.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּנִיסָן וְתִשְׁרִי, הָא בִּשְׁאָר יַרְחֵי.

Abaye said: This is not difficult: This ruling is referring to Nisan and Tishrei, which may be sanctified early in order to set the Festivals that occur in those months; that ruling is referring to the other months, which may not be sanctified early, even for some other pressing need.

רָבָא אָמַר: הָא דְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל — אֲחֵרִים הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בֵּין עֲצֶרֶת לַעֲצֶרֶת וְאֵין בֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים בִּלְבַד. וְאִם הָיְתָה שָׁנָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת — חֲמִשָּׁה.

Rava said: That which Rabba bar Shmuel taught, that the court may not lengthen or shorten the months for reason of communal need, follows the opinion of Aḥerim, as it is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say: The difference between the festival of Shavuot of one year and the festival of Shavuot of the following year, and similarly, between Rosh HaShana of one year and Rosh HaShana of the following year, is only four days of the week. There are 354 days in a lunar year, which are divided into twelve alternating months, six months that are thirty days long and six months that are twenty-nine days long. Therefore, every year is fifty weeks and four days long. And if it was a leap year, in which case the year is comprised of 383 days, or fifty-four weeks and five days, there is a difference of five days between them.

רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא מַתְנֵי אִיפְּכָא: מְאַיְּימִין עַל הָעֵדִים עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בִּזְמַנּוֹ — לְקַדְּשׁוֹ, וְאֵין מְאַיְּימִין עַל הָעֵדִים עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנִּרְאָה בִּזְמַנּוֹ — לְעַבְּרוֹ.

Rav Dimi from Neharde’a taught the baraita in the opposite manner: The court may intimidate the witnesses into giving testimony about the new moon that was not seen in its due time in order that the new month may be sanctified early, already on the thirtieth. But the court may not intimidate witnesses so that they do not give acceptable testimony about the new moon that was seen in its due time, in order to add an extra day to the old month, so that the New Moon is sanctified on the thirty-first.

מַאי טַעְמָא —

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rav Dimi’s opinion? Intimidating witnesses into testifying about something that they did not see is worse than intimidating them to withhold testimony about something that they did see.

הַאי מִיחֲזֵי כְּשִׁקְרָא, הַאי לָא מִיחֲזֵי כְּשִׁקְרָא.

In this case, where the witnesses withhold testimony about what they saw and the New Moon is pushed off to the next day, it looks like a lie, as the moon might have been seen by others as well, and people will wonder why the New Moon was not sanctified the previous day. In that case, where the witnesses testify about something that they did not see and the New Moon is a day early, it does not look like a lie, as everybody knows that it is possible that only a few people saw the new moon.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: יָכֵילְנָא לְתַקּוֹנֵי לְכוּלַּהּ גּוֹלָה.

§ Shmuel said: I am able to fix the calendar for the entire Diaspora without witnesses. Shmuel was an expert on the movement of the celestial bodies and on the principles governing leap years and additional days added to months.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּא אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי לִשְׁמוּאֵל: יָדַע מָר הַאי מִילְּתָא דְּתַנְיָא בְּסוֹד הָעִיבּוּר: נוֹלַד קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת אוֹ נוֹלַד אַחַר חֲצוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִדְּהָא לָא יָדַע מָר — אִיכָּא מִילֵּי אַחְרָנְיָיתָא דְּלָא יָדַע מָר.

Abba, the father of Rabbi Simlai, said to Shmuel: Does the Master know the meaning of this statement, as it is taught in a baraita dealing with the secret of addition, which discusses calendric calculations: Differentiate between when the molad occurred before midday and when the molad occurred after midday? He said to him: No, I do not know what this means. He said to him: Since the Master does not know this, there are probably other matters that the Master does not know, and therefore you must not establish a calendar, relying upon calculations that were made based on faulty or insufficient knowledge.

כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, שְׁלַח לְהוּ: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא לַיְלָה וָיוֹם מִן הֶחָדָשׁ.

As for the meaning of this obscure baraita, when Rabbi Zeira went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he sent back a letter to his colleagues in Babylonia: In order for a day to be sanctified as the New Moon, it is necessary that both the night and the day be of the new month. That is to say, the molad must occur before the beginning of the night.

וְזוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אַבָּא אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: מְחַשְּׁבִין אֶת תּוֹלַדְתּוֹ. נוֹלַד קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּרְאָה סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה. לֹא נוֹלַד קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה.

And this is what Abba, the father of Rabbi Simlai, said: The baraita means as follows: They calculate the molad; if the molad occurred before midday, so that there are at least six more hours left of the day, it is known that the moon will be visible close to sunset. If, however, the molad did not occur before midday, so that there are fewer than six hours left of the day, it is known that the moon will not be visible close to sunset.

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְאַכְחוֹשֵׁי סָהֲדֵי.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that this statement makes? In any case, the court is dependent upon the testimony of witnesses. Rav Ashi said: This information is used to refute the witnesses, as if the witnesses claim that they saw the new moon at a time when it was not visible according to the calculations, they are clearly false witnesses.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה שָׁעֵי מִכַּסֵּי סֵיהֲרָא. לְדִידַן — שֵׁית מֵעַתִּיקָא וְתַמְנֵי סְרֵי מֵחַדְתָּא, לְדִידְהוּ — שֵׁית מֵחַדְתָּא וְתַמְנֵי סְרֵי מֵעַתִּיקָא.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Naḥman said: For twenty-four hours the moon is covered, i.e., not visible. This occurs between the last sighting of the old moon and the first sighting of the new moon. For us, in Babylonia, it is not visible for six hours of the old moon and eighteen hours of the new; for them, in Eretz Yisrael, it is not visible for six hours of the new moon and eighteen hours of the old.

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְאַכְחוֹשֵׁי סָהֲדֵי.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that this statement makes? Rav Ashi said: It is used to refute the witnesses, as if they testify that they saw two moons, the old and the new, within a single twenty-four hour period, they are certainly false witnesses.

אָמַר מָר: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא לַיְלָה וָיוֹם מִן הֶחָדָשׁ. מְנָלַן? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד עֶרֶב״.

§ The Master said above: In order for a day to be sanctified as the New Moon, it is necessary that both the night and the day be of the new moon. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states: “From evening to evening shall you celebrate your Shabbat” (Leviticus 23:32). This teaches that the day follows the night for all the calculations pertaining to the Festivals and New Moons.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״עַד יוֹם הָאֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעָרֶב״.

Reish Lakish said: It is derived from the verse that states: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at the evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at the evening” (Exodus 12:18). This teaches that the Festival terminates at the end of the day, and a new day begins in the evening.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two derivations? Abaye said: There is no practical difference between them. The interpretation of the meaning of the verse is the difference between them.

רָבָא אָמַר: חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

Rava said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the hours before midnight. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who derives the halakha from the verse: “From evening to evening,” the previous day ends at nightfall. Therefore, if the new moon was seen only at the beginning of the night of the thirtieth, the thirtieth is not sanctified as the New Moon. However, according to Reish Lakish, who derives the halakha from the verse with regard to Passover: “Until the twenty-first day of the month at the evening,” the moon may be sanctified if it was seen before midnight. Eating unleavened bread on Passover is an obligation only on the first night until midnight. After that time, it is optional. The verse states: “You shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at the evening,” implying that it is not obligatory but optional to eat unleavened bread. Since the optional time of eating unleavened bread begins at midnight, after the conclusion of the obligatory time, the conclusion of that time is also at midnight on the twenty-first day. This implies that there is a concept of a day beginning at midnight. Accordingly, if the new moon was seen at the beginning of the night of the thirtieth, the thirtieth can still be sanctified as the New Moon.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כֹּל סְפֵיקָא לְקַמֵּיהּ שָׁדֵינַן. לְמֵימְרָא דַּחֲמֵיסַר וְשִׁיתְּסַר עָבְדִינַן, אַרְבֵּיסַר לָא עָבְדִינַן.

§ With regard to the extra Festival day that is observed in the Diaspora, Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Naḥman said: Any time that an extra Festival day is observed out of uncertainty with regard to the calendar, we cast it forward, i.e., it is observed on the following day and not on the preceding day. That is to say, owing to the uncertainty we observe Sukkot in the Diaspora on the fifteenth and the sixteenth of Tishrei, but not on the fourteenth.

וְלֶיעְבַּד נָמֵי אַרְבֵּיסַר? דִּלְמָא חַסְּרוּהּ לְאָב וְחַסְּרוּהּ לֶאֱלוּל!

The Gemara asks: But why not observe it also on the fourteenth, as perhaps both the month of Av and the month of Elul were made short? In that case, the day that is considered the fourteenth of Tishrei in the Diaspora would actually be the fifteenth of Tishrei, and therefore it should also be observed as Sukkot.

תְּרֵי יַרְחֵי חַסִּירֵי קָלָא אִית לְהוּ.

The Gemara answers: It is a rare occurrence that two consecutive months are made short, and this would generate publicity, so that everyone would know about it.

לֵוִי אִקְּלַע לְבָבֶל בְּחַדְסַר בְּתִשְׁרִי. אֲמַר: בְּסִים תַּבְשִׁילָא דְבַבְלָאֵי בְּיוֹמָא רַבָּה דְּמַעְרְבָא. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אַסְהֵיד! אֲמַר לְהוּ: לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי בֵּית דִּין ״מְקוּדָּשׁ״.

§ It was related that Levi once arrived in Babylonia on what was observed there as the eleventh of Tishrei. He said: How tasty is the dish of the Babylonians on the great day of Yom Kippur, as they are observing Yom Kippur in the West, Eretz Yisrael. The month of Elul had been declared full in Eretz Yisrael, and according to the calendar there, it was only the tenth of Tishrei. They said to him: Testify that today is Yom Kippur and we shall observe it. He said to them: I myself did not hear the court proclaim: It is sanctified. Although I know that the month had been declared full, since I did not personally hear the proclamation, I cannot offer direct testimony such that you should change your calculations.

מַכְרִיז רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּמָטוּ שְׁלוּחֵי נִיסָן, וְלָא מָטוּ שְׁלוּחֵי תִּשְׁרֵי — לִיעְבְּדוּ תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי. גְּזֵירָה נִיסָן אַטּוּ תִּשְׁרֵי.

It was further related that Rabbi Yoḥanan used to proclaim: Anywhere that can be reached by the messengers who go out in Nisan in time to inform the people when to observe Passover, but cannot be reached by the messengers sent out in Tishrei, let them also observe the festival of Passover for two days. The messengers did not travel on Rosh HaShana or Yom Kippur, and therefore they could travel three days further in Nisan than in Tishrei. The Sages instituted that two days must be observed in Nisan as a rabbinic decree due to Tishrei, for if they observe Passover for only one day, they will come to observe Sukkot for one day as well, and this they are not permitted to do.

רַבִּי אַיְיבוּ בַּר נַגָּרֵי וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אִיקְּלַעוּ לְהָהוּא אַתְרָא דַּהֲוָה מָטוּ שְׁלוּחֵי נִיסָן וְלָא מָטוּ שְׁלוּחֵי תִּשְׁרֵי, וְעָבְדִי חַד יוֹמָא, וְלָא אֲמַרוּ לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. שְׁמַע רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאִיקְּפַד. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָאו אֲמַרִי לְכוּ הֵיכָא דְּמָטוּ שְׁלוּחֵי נִיסָן וְלָא מָטוּ שְׁלוּחֵי תִּשְׁרֵי לִיעְבְּדוּ תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי, גְּזֵירָה נִיסָן אַטּוּ תִּשְׁרֵי!

It was reported that Rabbi Aivu bar Naggarei and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, two disciples of Rabbi Yoḥanan, once arrived in a certain place that could be reached by the messengers who go out in Nisan, but could not be reached by the messengers who go out in Tishrei. And they saw that the locals observed only one day of Passover. They said nothing to them to correct their practice. Rabbi Yoḥanan heard this and he became angry with Rabbi Aivu and Rabbi Ḥiyya, for they had failed to rebuke the people who were acting contrary to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explicit ruling. He said to them: Did I not say to you that anywhere that can be reached by the messengers sent out in Nisan but not by those sent out in Tishrei must observe two days of Passover, for the Sages instituted a rabbinic decree in Nisan due to Tishrei?

רָבָא הֲוָה רְגִיל דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּתַעֲנִיתָא תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי. זִימְנָא חֲדָא אִשְׁתְּכַח כְּווֹתֵיהּ.

§ The Gemara relates that Rava would regularly sit in observance of the fast of Yom Kippur for two days, in case Elul had been declared a thirty-day month and Yom Kippur should be observed on what was observed in Babylonia as the eleventh of Tishrei. It once happened in accordance with his opinion. Elul had been declared a thirty-day month, and he was the only one who observed Yom Kippur on the correct day.